On Monday 29 July 2013, the Supreme Court of England and
Wales, will consider the Department for Work and Pension’s (DWP) appeal against
the judgment of the Court of Appeal which unanimously held that the Regulations
under which most of the Government’s "Back to Work" schemes were created were
unlawful and had to be quashed.
Supreme Court to hear Government’s appeal on the “Back to Work” Regulations
The ruling which was handed down on 12 February 2013 was a huge setback for the DWP whose flagship reforms have been beset with problems since their inception.
The case was brought by our clients Cait Reilly, who was made to stack shelves in Poundland for two weeks, and Jamie Wilson, who was stripped of his Jobseeker’s allowance for 6 months after refusing to participate in a scheme which required him to work 30 hours a week for six months for free.
The Court of Appeal in its ruling held that over a two year period the Government unlawfully required hundreds of thousands of unemployed people to work without pay and unlawfully stripped tens of thousands more of their subsistence level benefits.
In March 2013, following the judgment, Iain Duncan Smith not only applied for permission to appeal but also took the wholly extraordinary step of rushing through parliament - The Jobseekers (Back to Work Act) 2013 - emergency legislation which overturned the Court of Appeal’s judgment and retrospectively declared lawful what the Court of Appeal had declared unlawful. That legislation, is the subject of a fresh judicial review challenge4 but it make the Government’s appeal to the Supreme Court academic because the law has now retrospectively changed since the Court of Appeal judgment.
"The decision of the Supreme Court on the DWP’s appeal will in the main be academic because the Government has already retrospectively changed the law to overturn the Court of Appeal’s judgment. However, the Supreme Court will also be considering our clients’ cross appeal in which we argue that the DWP is under an obligation to publish clear and accessible information about these schemes for jobseekers so that those like our clients understand what the schemes are and what can be lawfully required from them"
Tessa Gregory, solicitor, Public Interest Lawyers
Source; PIL
Supreme Court to hear Government’s appeal on the “Back to Work” Regulations
The ruling which was handed down on 12 February 2013 was a huge setback for the DWP whose flagship reforms have been beset with problems since their inception.
The case was brought by our clients Cait Reilly, who was made to stack shelves in Poundland for two weeks, and Jamie Wilson, who was stripped of his Jobseeker’s allowance for 6 months after refusing to participate in a scheme which required him to work 30 hours a week for six months for free.
The Court of Appeal in its ruling held that over a two year period the Government unlawfully required hundreds of thousands of unemployed people to work without pay and unlawfully stripped tens of thousands more of their subsistence level benefits.
In March 2013, following the judgment, Iain Duncan Smith not only applied for permission to appeal but also took the wholly extraordinary step of rushing through parliament - The Jobseekers (Back to Work Act) 2013 - emergency legislation which overturned the Court of Appeal’s judgment and retrospectively declared lawful what the Court of Appeal had declared unlawful. That legislation, is the subject of a fresh judicial review challenge4 but it make the Government’s appeal to the Supreme Court academic because the law has now retrospectively changed since the Court of Appeal judgment.
"The decision of the Supreme Court on the DWP’s appeal will in the main be academic because the Government has already retrospectively changed the law to overturn the Court of Appeal’s judgment. However, the Supreme Court will also be considering our clients’ cross appeal in which we argue that the DWP is under an obligation to publish clear and accessible information about these schemes for jobseekers so that those like our clients understand what the schemes are and what can be lawfully required from them"
Tessa Gregory, solicitor, Public Interest Lawyers
Source; PIL
Watch this hearing on Monday at 10.30am on Sky Courts…
R (on the application of Reilly and another) (Respondents) v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Appellant)
Court 2 | 10:30
Source; Sky Courts
