Forum Home → Discussion → Decision making and appeals → Thread
tribunal or mags - here we go again!
Any chance of a copy of that UT decision for Rightsnet?
I will dig it out but it was very brief.
Hope you’re not retiring soon. I’ve had a case on-the-go since 2008 (Court: Guilty verdict)/(Upper Tribunal: Not recoverable OP ‘client could not have known fact to report’ SoS agreed at UT); I submitted to the Criminal Case Review Commission but it has taken 2 years for a provisional statement of reasons from CCRC.
Still 16 years to go, so hopefully it will be resolved by then !! Papers have been with CCRC for several months and they have recently written to request all our papers as well
Commissioner Mesher was spot on ! I have had a fair bit of experience of cases that were put before Mags by sols who thought they were doing the client a great favour by pleading guilty early and getting a reduced penalty. In many cases I despaired to see our mutual client plead to an overpayment amount that should have been challenged.
a couple of enlightened solicitors referred their cases to me before any Mags hearings and when the case did go to criminal court asked me to go along and explain to the bench what the extent of any mitigation might be in respect of the benefits issue
Wearing case still at CCRC
I’ve just been handed an identical case to these. LTAHAW (they weren’t but he’s lied to everyone including my client about where he was), appeal to FTT submitted, and has now received a summons to Mag court. And of course, now can’t get legal aid. Clt on IS, can’t afford a paid solicitor. There’s words in my mind, but I don’t think I should really check the swear filter on rightsnet.
I’ve just been handed an identical case to these. LTAHAW (they weren’t but he’s lied to everyone including my client about where he was), appeal to FTT submitted, and has now received a summons to Mag court. And of course, now can’t get legal aid. Clt on IS, can’t afford a paid solicitor. There’s words in my mind, but I don’t think I should really check the swear filter on rightsnet.
Hi Lorraine
Legal Aid still exists for criminal work, which the summons to Magistrate’s Court would come under.
Chaos
*phew* colour me (and client) extremely relieved. Going out to see her Friday, so will be pushing to get legal aid sol & adjourn the mag’s as well as pushing the tribunal forward.
..The criminal court clearly had jurisdiction in Wearing despite the fact that the elements of the section 111A(1A) offence included questions of social security law such as “entitlement” reserved exclusively for the SSWP under section 8(1)(c) SSA 98. A relevant enactment under the latter includes an enactment under the Administration Act.
But the fact is decisions on entitlement to benefit, as opposed to contributions, are not conclusive for the criminal proceedings so the criminal court doesn’t have to adjourn to await the outcome of tribunals. It should, of course, do so on the basis that a successful tribunal would almost certainly represent a reasonable doubt..
I’ve changed my mind about the above. Where one condition of the offence is that “entitlement” is affected, it is implicit, surely, that the F-tT or UT’s decision on that entitlement is conclusive. The question of entitlement is, after all, a matter for the SSWP
Neil identified express provision to this effect in the form of section 117 (see posts 30 & 32). However, that section, on closer inspection, only made contributions decisions conclusive for the criminal proceedings. However, I think there is no need for similar express provision when it comes to entitlement decisions simply because it is implicit as above.
It would be odd if that were not the case. Eg, if criminal proceedings must be adjourned under section 117 to await the outcome of a F-tT re a contribution decision appeal, but need not be adjourned for the outcome of the F-tT (or UT’s) substantive decision on benefit entitlement itself.
[ Edited: 28 Oct 2013 at 05:34 pm by Tom H ]I have a case that was adjourned due to presenting officer as usual failing to attend, and now the tribunal says DWP will be prosecuting so they want a postponement until after criminal proceedind which have not yet started.
I have responded to the tribunal that we want to go ahead as planned using above cases also that as we are disputing the amount of overpayment recoverable it is essential that a tribunal determines this before a kindly Magistrate gets to work with his/her pocket calculator. also human rights act A6 right to a timely hearing
this case of mine has a potential for over 40k overpayment so the issue is deperately imprtant for my client,
I have now had the response and the case will be listed before the criminal case comes up, the Mote case I mentioned was supported by the Tribunal Judge as a reason for immediate listing
[ Edited: 7 Jan 2014 at 10:50 am by SocSec ]Just to update on “Wearing” - her case is still with the CCRC, with no outcome as yet
Mrs Wearing has now received a Statement of Reasons from the CCRC with notification of their decision not to refer the case back to the Court of Appeal.
She is understandably disappointed and frustrated. She would like to speak to someone who has experience in these matters, to see whether she can take up their offer for her to make further submissions by 5th January 2015 (or else decision will become final and case will be closed)
I do not have any legal qualification or experience in dealing with such matters, and would be grateful if anyone is aware of any person or company that I can point her towards, to get that advice
Thanks
Brian
Merseyside Welfare Rights?