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 driver, 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 outcome of the case affects over 3,000 claimants and entails around £130m unpaid benefits.
Contents
First High Court ruling
On 6 August 2012, the High Court ruled (contrary to the arguments of Reilly and Wilson) that the scheme could not be considered slavery, and was not therefore a breach of Article 4 of the European Convention on Human Rights. On the other hand, it also ruled that the Department for Work and Pensions had breached its Regulation 4 (which required certain details of the Work Programme to be given to participants in writing).
Both parties expressed their wish to appeal the judgement.
Court of Appeal and Supreme Court rulings
On 12 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 did not state whether or not the current case impinges on Article 4 of the European Convention on Human Rights.
The government appealed the judgment, but on 30 October 2013, the decision of the Appeal Court was upheld by the Supreme Court.
The court also stated explicitly that there had been no contravention of Article 4 of the European Convention on Human Rights, but since the court ruled against workfare the comments regarding the human rights do not form part of the reasons for the judgment and therefore are not legally binding. Even so, the findings of the court have been judged to indicate a shift in the nature of "the relationship between social rights and obligations in the context of unemployment policy" in the UK: the founder the modern UK welfare state, William Beveridge, conceived the classical welfare state as freeing people from Want, while obliging them to work when possible; whereas the rulings in Reilly v Secretary of State imply that Want is now used as a threat to ensure that welfare claimants habituate themselves to the demands of the contemporary workplace.
Government retrospectively changes the law, contravening Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights
However, on 19 March 2013, before its appeal was completed, the Government also passed the Jobseekers (Back to Work Schemes) Act 2013 to retrospectively make its unlawful sanctions against benefits claimants legal, in order to avoid potentially having to repay unlawfully withheld benefits payments of around £130m.
In response to the law-change, the law firm acting for Reilly and Wilson, Public Interest Lawyers, 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'.
On Friday 4 July 2014, Mrs Justice Lang, sitting at the High Court in London, ruled that the retrospective nature of the legislation interfered with the "right to a fair trial" under Article Six of the Convention on Human Rights. The government appealed this ruling, but on 29 April 2016, the Court of Appeal upheld the previous court's decision; Lord Justice Underhill, summarising the court's findings, emphasised that although the Act was incompatible with the European Convention on Human Rights, 'it is up to the Government, subject to any further appeal, to decide what action to take in response'.