Reilly (No. 2) & Anor, R (on the application of) v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions
2014
ADMINISTRATIVE COURT
UK
CORAM
- MRS JUSTICE LANG
Areas of Law
- Human Rights Law
2014
ADMINISTRATIVE COURT
UK
CORAM
AI Generated Summary
The case involved Claimants who received Jobseekers Allowance (JSA) and were required to participate in unpaid work schemes introduced by the 2011 Regulations. They argued that the retrospective application of the Jobseekers (Back to Work Schemes) Act 2013, which validated the previously flawed 2011 Regulations, violated their rights under Articles 6 and A1 P1 of the ECHR. The court found the 2013 Act incompatible with Article 6(1) as it unduly influenced the judicial determination of their claims in Reilly No. 1, but it held that Article 1 of the First Protocol was not engaged.
Judgment
Mrs Justice Lang
The Claimants seek a declaration of incompatibility, under section 4, Human Rights Act 1998 (“ HRA 1998 ”), on the ground that the Jobseekers (Back to Work Schemes) Act 2013 (“ the 2013 Act ”) is incompatible with their rights under Article 6 and Article 1 of the First Protocol (“A1 P1”) to the European Convention on Human Rights (“ECHR”).
This claim follows on from R (Reilly & Wilson) v. The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions [2013] UKSC 68 ; [2013] 3 WLR 1276 (“Reilly No. 1”), brought by Ms Reilly, the First Claimant in this claim.
On 22 nd January 2014, Ouseley J. adjourned the permission application to be heard orally as a “rolled up hearing”, with the substantive hearing to proceed immediately thereafter, should the Court grant permission. With the agreement of the parties, I heard submissions on both the permission application and the substantive claim together. I wish to record my gratitude to Mr Eadie QC and Mr Hickman for their excellent written and oral submissions and to Ms Rogers for her industry and expertise.
History
The Claimants, who were unemployed at the relevant time, were both in receipt of the social security benefit known as Jobseekers Allowance ( JSA) . According to Mr Guest, senior civil servant in the Department of Work and Pensions (“DWP”), JSA is a subsistence-level benefit payable to persons who are actively seeking employment. The amount payable depends upon a jobseeker’s circumstances, but in 2013/14 it was £56.80 per week for 16-24 year olds, and £71.70 for those aged 25 or over.
Both Claimants were required to participate in unpaid “work for your benefit” schemes, introduced by the Jobseeker’s Allowance (Employment, Skills and Enterprise Scheme) Regulations 2011 (“the 2011 Regulations”). Pursuant to the Regulations, JSA could be withheld from those who refused to participate, as a sanction.
The First Claimant complied with the requirement and so did not suffer any sanction. However, attendance on the scheme meant she was unable to continue her voluntary work in a museum, which she hoped would lead to a career in museums. She was not sent any written notification, as required by the 2011 Regulations, and she was misinformed about the nature of the scheme by the Jobcentre adviser.
Together with Mr Wilson (who is not a Claimant in this second judicial review claim), she brought the first judicial review claim, Reilly No. 1 . In the Administrative Court, on 6 th August 2012, Foskett J