Matches in DBpedia 2014 for { ?s ?p Caitlin Reilly and Jamieson Wilson v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions [2012] EWHC 2292 (Admin) was a 2012 legal case heard by the Administrative Division of the High Court in which Caitlin Reilly, an unemployed geology graduate, and an unemployed Jamieson Wilson challenged the Department for Work and Pensions "workfare" policy whereby the unemployed can be "forced" to work for private companies for their benefit payments. Under the workfare scheme, individuals have the right to opt out, but face having their benefits removed- something that makes participation in the scheme necessary for those who would be unable to support themselves without their benefit payments. The High Court ruled that the scheme could not be considered slavery, and was not therefore a breach of Article 4 of the European Convention on Human Rights.Despite the judgement, critics have argued that "workfare" is a counter-productive policy in that it decreases the number of waged jobs as they can be replaced by workfare ones. Critics also argue that taxpayers' money should not be used to effectively subsidize private companies. Supporters of the scheme have argued that opposition is partly a result of "job snobbery".In February 2013, the decision of the High Court was overturned on appeal, with the Court of Appeal ruling that the work placement system was unlawful because parliament had not given the DWP lawful authority to impose such schemes and because the people involved were not provided with sufficient information about it. The Court of Appeal quashed the Jobseeker's Allowance (Employment, Skills and Enterprise Scheme) Regulations 2011. The court mentioned the issue of human rights but did not state whether or not the current case impinges on them Article 4 of the European Convention on Human Rights.The government announced its intention to appeal the judgement. However, before this appeal was completed, it also passed the Jobseekers (Back to Work Schemes) Act 2013 to retrospectively make its unlawful sanctions against benefits claimants opting out of the workfare scheme legal, in order to avoid potentially having to repay unlawfully withheld benefits payments of around £130m. The law firm acting for Reilly and Wilson, Public Interest Lawyers, reportedly lodged submissions to the supreme court, arguing that 'the actions of the secretary of state … represent a clear violation of article 6 [of the European convention on human rights] and the rule of law, as an interference in the judicial process by the legislature'.. }
Showing items 1 to 1 of
1
with 100 items per page.
- Caitlin_Reilly_and_Jamieson_Wilson_v_Secretary_of_State_for_Work_and_Pensions abstract "Caitlin Reilly and Jamieson Wilson v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions [2012] EWHC 2292 (Admin) was a 2012 legal case heard by the Administrative Division of the High Court in which Caitlin Reilly, an unemployed geology graduate, and an unemployed Jamieson Wilson challenged the Department for Work and Pensions "workfare" policy whereby the unemployed can be "forced" to work for private companies for their benefit payments. Under the workfare scheme, individuals have the right to opt out, but face having their benefits removed- something that makes participation in the scheme necessary for those who would be unable to support themselves without their benefit payments. The High Court ruled that the scheme could not be considered slavery, and was not therefore a breach of Article 4 of the European Convention on Human Rights.Despite the judgement, critics have argued that "workfare" is a counter-productive policy in that it decreases the number of waged jobs as they can be replaced by workfare ones. Critics also argue that taxpayers' money should not be used to effectively subsidize private companies. Supporters of the scheme have argued that opposition is partly a result of "job snobbery".In February 2013, the decision of the High Court was overturned on appeal, with the Court of Appeal ruling that the work placement system was unlawful because parliament had not given the DWP lawful authority to impose such schemes and because the people involved were not provided with sufficient information about it. The Court of Appeal quashed the Jobseeker's Allowance (Employment, Skills and Enterprise Scheme) Regulations 2011. The court mentioned the issue of human rights but did not state whether or not the current case impinges on them Article 4 of the European Convention on Human Rights.The government announced its intention to appeal the judgement. However, before this appeal was completed, it also passed the Jobseekers (Back to Work Schemes) Act 2013 to retrospectively make its unlawful sanctions against benefits claimants opting out of the workfare scheme legal, in order to avoid potentially having to repay unlawfully withheld benefits payments of around £130m. The law firm acting for Reilly and Wilson, Public Interest Lawyers, reportedly lodged submissions to the supreme court, arguing that 'the actions of the secretary of state … represent a clear violation of article 6 [of the European convention on human rights] and the rule of law, as an interference in the judicial process by the legislature'.".