BSP is a non-means tested benefit intended to support eligible surviving partners in meeting the immediate additional financial costs faced following a bereavement. This benefit is available if a deceased partner has paid some National Insurance (NI) contributions during their working life (the “Contribution Condition”).

Daniel was denied BSP after his Disabled wife’s death in 2020, because she did not meet the Contribution Condition due to her disabilities. Daniel challenged the DWP’s decision arguing that the decision was discriminatory. 

Daniel, who was represented by the charity Public Law Project, first took his judicial review case to the High Court, which ruled in his favour in September 2022. This judgment was also upheld by the Court of Appeal in 2023, but the DWP’s further appeal to the Supreme Court took place on 11 and 12 March 2025. 

Today, the Supreme Court ruled against Daniel and for the Secretary of State, citing that: “Mr Jwanczuk is not entitled to BSP because the Contribution Condition is not met. This result may seem harsh, and the Supreme Court does not underestimate the vulnerability of people in Mrs Jwanczuk’s position or the difficulties faced by their families. However, the courts must respect the boundaries between legality and the political process”.

Daniel Jwanczuk said:

“This is a dark day for anyone like me, who wants the memory of their loved one to be respected and valued equally. The DWP has twice appealed in order to avoid paying bereavement support to me and other loved ones of Disabled people who were unable to work during their lives.” 

“The money would have been a lifeline for me when I was at my lowest, after losing my beloved wife Suzzi. Suzzi lived with Ullrich congenital muscular dystrophy and other chronic complications and fought every day just to exist in a body that worked tirelessly against her. She was never able to work — not because she lacked the will but because her condition never gave her the chance to work a ‘normal’ day to day job and, to some degree, neither did society. Her entire life was shaped by a condition she didn’t choose, pain she suffered and discrimination she faced and fought against.”

“Yet the government’s position — now endorsed by the Supreme Court — is that because she couldn’t pay National Insurance, I don’t deserve BSP like other widows.” 

Judgement

In their judgment, the Supreme Court found that the discrimination in this case was justified and that “Parliament should be given a wide margin of appreciation in cases, like this one, which concern policy choices about the allocation of scarce public resources.”

The Court found that the government’s aims for requiring the Contribution Condition (reducing the stigma of claiming benefits; simplifying the benefit system; and ensuring greater certainty so that individuals understand what they are entitled to) were legitimate and rational.

Considering an appeal

Daniel and his legal team are considering an appeal to the European Court of Human Rights.

Daniel said:

“If the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom cannot see the injustice in punishing bereaved partners because their partners were too disabled to work, then I will take the fight to a court that can.

“My legal team and I are already exploring every available route forward — including but not limited to an application to the European Court of Human Rights. The cruelty baked into this decision cannot be allowed to stand unchallenged.” 

Daniel’s lawyers at Public Law Project still believe the DWP’s refusal was discriminatory. 

Matthew Court, lawyer at Public Law Project, said: 

“We argued that the DWP breached Article 14 of the European Convention of Human Rights by denying BSP to Daniel, who was ineligible for BSP only because his partner was unable to make the required NI Contributions because she was unable to work throughout their life due to disability/illness. 

“Daniel should still be praised for bringing this important case, especially as these lengthy appeals have been an arduous four year experience for a grieving widower to go through.”

“Regardless of the outcome today, the DWP must do more to support the loved ones of Disabled people after bereavement who are ineligible for BSP because of their family member’s life-long disability.” 

“We are disappointed by the Supreme Court’s judgment, but we will continue to advise Daniel on the possibility of appealing this outcome and, we hope, bringing an end to BSP discrimination of this kind.” 

Chief Executive Stephanie Patrick, WAY Widowed and Young, said:

“We are incredibly disappointed by today’s Supreme Court’s judgment, but WAY Widowed and Young will continue to campaign on behalf of Daniel and other young widowed people in his position who have been denied this vital financial support at the time when they need it most. We thank Daniel for bringing this case all the way to the Supreme Court, with support from the Public Law Project, and we hope that Daniel’s courage to stand up for his rights will eventually bring an end to Bereavement Support Payment discrimination of this kind.”

Dr Alison Penny, Coordinator of the National Bereavement Alliance, said:

“We are very disappointed that the Supreme Court has overturned previous rulings that it is a breach of human rights to deny BSP to surviving families of people who could not work because of life-long disability. In 2022, the UK Commission on Bereavement called for this important benefit to be extended to this group of grieving families.

We pay tribute to the bravery of Mr Jwanczuk in bringing his private grief for his wife Suzzi into the public realm. We are grateful to him and the Public Law Project for fighting for the human rights of bereaved partners of people whose severe disabilities meant they were unable to work.” 

Background

Daniel’s deceased wife, Suzzi Jwanczuk, was unable to work throughout her working life because of her disabilities. Friends since childhood, Daniel and Suzzi became romantically involved in 1995. Daniel became Suzzi’s full-time carer after her condition declined significantly. They were married from 2005 until Suzzi’s death in a hospice on 20 November 2020. 

When Daniel was looking for financial assistance in the aftermath of Suzzi’s death, he applied for BSP. He was rejected, on the grounds that Suzzi had not met the National Insurance contributions threshold (“the Contribution Condition”) necessary for Daniel to be eligible for BSP – a condition she was unable to meet because her life-long disabilities meant she was unable to work. BSP would have provided Daniel with an initial payment of £2,500, then £100 a month for 18 months, a total of £4,300.

Daniel is grateful to the charity WAY Widowed and Young who supported him emotionally after Suzzi’s death. 

A similar case in Northern Ireland was heard by the Northern Ireland Court of Appeal in 2020 (O’Donnell v Department for Communities), where the court found in favour of O’Donnell, whose partner had been unable to work throughout their working life. Since the O’Donnel judgment Northern Ireland introduced a policy for paying BSP to individuals where the deceased family member was unable to work their entire working life due to disability or illness. 

Daniel is represented by Matthew Court and Hannah Moxsom at Public Law Project and Ben Jaffey KC of Blackstone Chambers and Tom Royston of Garden Court North. Daniel was also represented in the High Court and Court of Appeal by the late Catherine Callaghan KC of Blackstone Chambers and by Alice Stevens (previously of Public Law Project).  

The post Widower devastated by Supreme Court ruling on Bereavement Support appeared first on Public Law Project.

Jamie brings extensive experience from the environmental and social justice sectors, having previously served in senior leadership roles at Friends of the Earth, including as its Interim CEO for the last 15 months. With a strong background in campaigning, policy development, and organisational management, Jamie is well-placed to lead PLP through this period, continuing to ramp up the organisation’s vital work promoting fairness through public law. 

Shameem Ahmad, CEO, said: 

“We are delighted to welcome Jamie to PLP. Jamie’s commitment to social justice and experience in leading mission-driven organisations will stand PLP in great stead during my parental leave. With Jamie’s leadership, PLP will be well-placed to continue to respond confidently in these challenging times, leveraging our new strategy, resilient team and close partnerships. This is a critical time for doing all we can to advance fairness through public law. I look forward to Jamie and the team achieving even more with our partners against the odds.”

Jamie Peters, Interim CEO, said: 

“It is a privilege to join Public Law Project, a highly respected organisation whose work defending fundamental rights and holding power to account is absolutely vital. In an increasingly challenging world, protecting public law so that justice is served matters even more today. I look forward to working with the exceptional team and Board of Trustees to advance PLP’s mission of promoting fairness and justice through the law. I also want to thank Shameem for her outstanding leadership and wish her all the best for her exciting new chapter.”

Jonathan Senker, Chair of PLP’s Board of Trustees, said: 

“The Board is excited to welcome Jamie to PLP and relishes the opportunity to work with him over the year ahead while Shameem is on parental leave. We are grateful for her outstanding leadership, wish Shameem every happiness during this special time, and look forward to her return.

“Jamie brings a deep belief in the power of law to serve the public good and extensive experience of encouraging and challenging the state to act for its citizens. His conviction that we achieve the most by working together with others aligns with PLP. Jamie has proved his ability to lead organisations promoting social justice in the febrile environment the country finds itself in, and we are delighted that Jamie will be working with us to steer PLP’s progress.

With our strengthened board and ambitious strategy, Jamie is well placed to lead PLP from strength to strength.”

Jamie took up his post this week, allowing time for a handover with Shameem over the next month. 

• Job
• News & Updates
• Resource
• Uncategorized

The post Welcome to Interim CEO, Jamie Peters  appeared first on Public Law Project.

At Public Law Project (PLP), our work is in pursuit of a fair and inclusive society and we see Party Conferences as an opportunity for politicians and policymakers to lay the foundations to deliver fairness. As well as being interested in whether parties engage with the topics we work on (such as regulating automated decision making or ensuring fairness in the welfare and immigration systems), we are interested in how parties engage with these issues.

This blog outlines the 4 things we hope to see at this year’s Party Conferences. 

1. Marginalised communities have a seat at the table 

In a fair society, everyone should get the chance to have proper input into policies that affect their lives. We are in a political moment where the shape of crucial public systems like the NHS, welfare benefits, and the asylum system are up for debate. No public service exists in a vacuum, and a huge variety of lived experience shapes the way each of us interacts with the state and the services it provides. Parties should be proactively engaging with marginalised communities to design a state that works for us all.  Being able to draw on their experiences would practically benefit anyone designing an efficient, let alone inclusive, system.  

PLP strongly encourages parties to commit to working with people with relevant lived experience when designing their policy platforms. This would be a critical step towards more informed and empathetic policy- and decision-making. This consultation shouldn’t be tokenistic; marginalised people shouldn’t be in a room just so a box can be ticked. We want to see the contributions of people who have been marginalised valued and listened to.  

2. A fair and respectful tone 

Politicians too often rely on simplistic narratives to justify their political choices, scapegoating marginalised communities instead of acknowledging the profound impact that marginalisation and inequality have on individuals within our society. Those who are already on the receiving end of injustice and unfairness – like asylum seekers, benefit claimants, or the trans community – deserve better than to be used as deflection by those who avoid confronting the systemic problems facing us.  

A critical marker of a successful party conference will be whether marginalised communities are treated with respect. When the party leaders speak about groups of people, we have to ask – would they say it that way if they were sitting in the room? Could they repeat it and look someone with lived experience of that issue in the eye? 

The emphasis should be squarely on fairness and inclusivity, however complicated these can be. The unravelling of marginalisation comes first from respecting and understanding it, and the results will improve life for us all.  

3. Visions for a future where all power is accountable 

We are in a global political moment where authoritarianism and disregard for the rule of law are on the rise. We will be watching with anticipation to see how much emphasis parties put on ensuring accountability for the current, and all future, governments to safeguard against the potential for unchecked power.  

Because of public law protections, each of us can legally challenge the state when it acts unfairly towards us, for example through judicial review, a process where a judge reviews the lawfulness of a decision or action made by a public body. Through Judicial Review, PLP was able to support a refugee torture survivor threatened with deportation to Rwanda to challenge the Home Secretary in court and bring an end to the deeply harmful Rwanda policy. This ability must be safeguarded, not weakened in the pursuit of quick fixes and legislative workarounds.  

This rebalancing of power through public law does not truly exist without universal access to justice. Amidst the cost-of-living crisis, legal advice is out of financial reach for many, so our crumbling legal aid system must be reinforced. The ability to challenge unfair decisions should not be restricted to those who can afford it; those who are not privileged, whether economically or otherwise, are inherently more likely to experience discrimination. 

4. Fairness at the heart of policy making

Ultimately, we want to see is fairness and inclusivity at the heart of policy making. We don’t expect perfection from any one government or party – which is why it is so important to be able to hold any government accountable.  

Engagement with communities, respectful narratives and true accountability are the building blocks of a conference that effectively addresses the political and public law issues of our day. This autumn sees all the parties set the tone for a crucial year in British politics – we hope it will be one of fairness. 

The post Putting people at the heart of Party Conferences: 4 things we hope to see  appeared first on Public Law Project.

We all deserve to live safe from harm and to be treated with compassion, dignity, and respect. But this shockingly cruel and inhumane Bill turns our country’s back on people fleeing war and persecution, blocking them from protection, support, or justice at a time they need it most.

The Bill is effectively a ban on asylum, extinguishing the right to seek refugee protection in the United Kingdom. It will put people seeking safety and a better life at risk of irreversible harm, with life and death consequences.

This Bill attacks the very core of human rights, which is the fundamental belief that we all have human rights regardless of who we are or where we are from. Instead, it separates people into categories of ‘deserving’ and ‘undeserving’ of human rights. In stripping the most basic rights from people seeking safety and a better life, the Bill dismantles human rights protections for all of us.

The Bill deliberately and unacceptably excludes an entire category of people from the protections guaranteed under our domestic laws and international obligations. It will almost certainly breach multiple international conventions and agreements, including the UN Refugee Convention, the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), and the Council of Europe Convention on Action against Trafficking in Human Beings (ECAT). The Government has acknowledged that it cannot guarantee the Bill will be compatible with the ECHR, a legally binding instrument.

The Convention represents the rights and values that we hold dear, including the right to life, protection from slavery and torture, and the right to liberty, which are all threatened by this Bill.

Not only does the Bill substantially threaten human rights, it aims to shield the Government from accountability when it does violate those rights by reducing parliamentary and judicial scrutiny.

The Bill includes the unprecedented and alarming proposal to disapply Section 3 of the Human Rights Act, which empowers our judges to interpret laws in a way that protects our rights. Without that protection, individuals affected by this Bill are limited from getting justice when their rights are violated.

The Bill hands vast delegated powers to the Secretary of State, including the power to amend laws in Wales, Scotland, and Northern Ireland, despite the fact that human rights are largely a devolved matter. The Bill would also enable Ministers to ignore interim measures from the European Court of Human Rights – a rare yet vital last resort to halt proceedings like deportations when people’s lives are deemed at risk of extreme and irreversible harm.

This Bill would almost certainly be unlawful domestically and internationally. The Bill signals to the international community that the Government intends to commit human rights abuses while evading scrutiny and accountability, setting a dangerous example to other states.

More importantly, these cruel and inhumane plans are a stain on our collective moral conscience, attacking the values we cherish as a democratic, rights-respecting society. This Bill is a dangerous piece of legislation that will most certainly lead to irreparable harm, grave suffering, and possible deaths if enacted.

We stand united in solidarity with the individuals and families who would be directly harmed, and oppose the Government’s divisive attacks on refugees migrants, victims and survivors of human trafficking and modern slavery, and other people who move. We fiercely reject any attempts to undermine the universality of human rights.

We urge all Parliamentarians to urge the Government to withdraw the Bill.

Signed: 

1. Danielle Roberts, Senior Policy and Development Officer, Here NI
2. Andrea Cleaver, CEO, Welsh Refugee Council
3. Paul Hook, Director, Asylum Matters
4. Deborah Gold, Chief Executive, National AIDS Trust
5. Saqib Deshmukh, Interim CEO, Alliance for Youth Justice
6. Deborah Coles, Executive Director, INQUEST
7. Chris Jones, Director, Statewatch
8. Declan Owens, Co-Chair, Haldane Society of Socialist Lawyers
9. Declan Owens, CEO, Ecojustice Ireland
10. David Weaver, Chair, OBV
11. Lee Jasper, Co-Founder, Blaksox
12. Jess McQuail, Director, Just Fair
13. Emma Hutton, CEO, JustRight Scotland
14. Chloe Trew, Director, Participation and the Practice of Rights
15. Jonathan Senker, CEO, VoiceAbility
16. Andrew Copson, Chief Executive, Humanists UK
17. Tim Naor Hilton, Chief Executive, Refugee Action
18. Victoria Marks, Director, ATLEU
19. Clare Moseley, Chair, Care4Calais
20. Susanna Revolti, CEO, Borderlands
21. Mauricio Silva, IRD Coordinator, Columbans in Britain
22. Mia Hasenson-Gross, Executive Director, René Cassin, the Jewish voice for human rights
23. Amber Bauer, CEO, forRefugees
24. Lucy Nabijou, Coordinator, Haringey Welcome
25. Jane Lees, CEO, CommunityWorks
26. Ruhi Akhtar, CEO, Refugee Biriyani & Bananas
27. Naabil Khan, Volunteer Coordinator, STAR Exeter
28. Jeremy Thompson, Manager, Restore (a project of Birmingham Churches Together)
29. Miranda Reilly, Director, The Association of Visitors to Immigration Detainees
30. Aisling Playford, Policy and Advocacy Manager, Rainbow Project
31. Toni Soni, Centre Director, Coventry Refugee and Migrant Centre
32. Suleiman Abdulahi, Managing Director, Horn of Africa People’s Aid Northern Ireland
33. Jabbar Hasan, Director, Iraqi Association
34. Jeannie Tweedie, Co-Director, Elmbridge CAN
35. Kayte Cable and Vicki Felgate, Co-Founders, Big Leaf Foundation
36. Aderonke Apata, Founder and CEO, African Rainbow Family
37. Sampson Low, Head of Policy, UNISON
38. Gisela Valle, Director, Latin American Women’s Rights Service
39. Aderonke Apata, Founder and Chairperson, Manchester Migrant Solidarity
40. Sue Lacey, Founder, Together100
41. Eleni Venaki, Director, The Comfrey Project
42. Karen Pearse, Director, Positive Action For Refugees and Asylum Seekers
43. Amos Schonfield, CEO, Our Second Home
44. Chloe Crowther, Bristol Defend Asylum Seekers Campaign
45. Tom Brake, Director, Unlock Democracy
46. Sebastian Rocca, Founder and CEO, Micro Rainbow
47. Sheila Mosley, Steering Group member, Quaker Asylum and Refugee Network – QARN
48. Mel Steel, Director, Voices in Exile
49. Ewan Roberts, CEO, Asylum Link Merseyside
50. William Gomes, Director, The William Gomes Podcast
51. Dr Razia Shariff, CEO, Kent Refugee Action Network
52. Andrea Simon, Director, End Violence Against Women Coalition
53. Emily Crowley, Chief Executive, Student Action for Refugees (STAR)
54. Tamsin Cook, Co-Artistic Director, Mafwa Theatre
55. Rose Caldwell, CEO, Plan International UK
56. Isobel Ingham-Barrow, CEO, Community Policy Forum
57. Clare Moody, Co-CEO, Equally Ours
58. Sadia Sikandar, Advisory Board, West End Refugee Services
59. Rosie MacPherson, Artistic Director & Joint CEO, Stand & Be Counted Theatre
60. Efi Stathopoulou, Programmes Manager, Refugee Legal Support
61. Ros Gowers, Coordinator, Evesham Vale Welcomes Refugees
62. Margaret Lennon, Director, Bridges Programmes
63. Daniel Boyle, Senior Parliamentary and Policy Officer, BEMIS Scotland
64. Elayne Hill, CEO, Central England Law Centre
65. Angus Clark, Chief Executive, Herts for Refugees
66. Liz Needham, Chair of Trustees, St Albans for Refugees
67. Jean-Pierre Moussally, community councillor of the agglomeration of Grand Calais Terres & Mers, EELV (French Green Party)
68. Nancy Kelley, CEO, Stonewall
69. Juliet Harris, Together (Scottish Alliance for Children’s Rights), Director
70. Shameem Ahmad, CEO, Public Law Project
71. Emma Ginn, Director, Medical Justice
72. Pete Ritchie, Director, Nourish Scotland
73. Fraser Sutherland, Chief Executive, Humanist Society Scotland
74. Alexandra Lopoukhine, Interim Executive Director, Joint Council for the Welfare of Immigrants
75. Georgina Fletcher, Chief Officer, Regional Refugee Forum North East
76. Catharine Walston, Trustee, Cambridge Refugee Resettlement Campaign
77. Catharine Walston, Chair of Executive, Cambridge Convoy Refugee Action Group
78. Rev Peta Evans, Senior Pastor, Metropolitan Community Church of North London
79. Jenni Regan, CEO, IMIX
80. Bridget Young, Director, NACCOM
81. Andrew Jackson, Chief Executive, Upbeat Communities
82. Sarah Fenby-Dixon, trustee, Refugee Aid Network
83. Kat Lorenz, Director, Asylum Support Appeals Project
84. Mhairi Snowden, Director, Human Rights Consortium Scotland
85. National Committee, Women for Independence
86. Will Sutcliffe, Chair, Bradford City of Sanctuary
87. Charles Dobson, Chairman, Skipton Refugee Support Group
88. Angie Pedley Co-ordinator, Craven Refugee Support Network
89. Angie Pedley, Co-ordinator, Craven District of Sanctuary
90. Robert Rae, Co-Director, Art27 Scotland
91. Amanda Jones, CEO, Shropshire Supports Refugees
92. Amy Lythgoe, Trustee, Together Now
93. Zara Mohammed, Secretary-General, Muslim Council of Britain
94. Maggie Pearse, Chair, BIASAN (Bradford Immigration and Asylum Support and Advice Network)
95. Daniel Tsz Kin Kwok, Director, The Hong Kong Scots CIC
96. Gail Heath, CEO, Pankhurst Trust (incorporating Manchester Women’s Aid)
97. Steve Newman, Chair, FODI (Friends of the Drop In for asylum seekers and refugees, Sunderland)
98. Alphonsine Kabagabo, Director, Women for Refugee Women
99. Tim Hopkins, Director, Equality Network
100. Gill Tipping, Co-chair, Lewes Organisation in Support of Refugees and Asylum Seekers (LOSRAS)
101. Lilian Geijsen, European Director, Ben & Jerry’s
102. Sian Summers-Rees, Chief Officer, City of Sanctuary UK
103. Chloe Wolfe, Charity Manager, Swindon City of Sanctuary
104. Helen Hodgson, Operations Director, Hope at Home
105. Lisa Norcross, Project and Fundraising Manager, Kairos Housing
106. Alan Gray, Chair, Forth Valley Migrant Support Network
107. Amanda Church-Mcfarlane, Co-CEO, Abigail Housing
108. Clare Campbell, Operations Manager, Walking With in North Tyneside
109. Stroud District Together With Refugees
110. Martha Spurrier, Director, Liberty
111. Nick Beales, Head of Campaigns, RAMFEL
112. Revd Jide Macaulay, Chief Executive Officer, House of Rainbow CIC
113. Lade Olugbemi, The Nous Organisation
114. Sandy Brindley, Chief Executive, Rape Crisis Scotland
115. Dennis Carney, Chair, Black Connection
116. Ros Holland, Chief Exec, Boaz Trust
117. Ted Britton, Chair of Trustees, WYDAN
118. Gwen Hines, Chief Executive, Save the Children
119. Jamie Balfour-Paul, Founder, Magic for Smiles
120. Avril Sharp, Policy Officer, Kalayaan
121. Dania Thomas, Director, Ubuntu Women Shelter
122. Mark Courtice, Chair of Trustees, Southampton and Winchester Visitors Group
123. Agnes Tolmie, Chair, The Scottish Women’s Convention
124. Kate Alexander, Director, Scottish Detainee Visitors
125. Simon Tyler, Director, Doctors of the World
126. Sacha Deshmukh, Chief Executive, Amnesty International UK
127. Dr. Patrick Roach, General Secretary, NASUWT
128. James Wilson, Director, Detention Action
129. Anna Lewis, CEO, Open Door North East
130. Simon Cheng, Director, Hongkongers in Britain
131. Jane Grimshaw, Convenor Hastings Supports Refugees
132. Julie Bishop, Director, Law Centres Network
133. Sattinder Collins, Chair, Tees Valley of Sanctuary
134. Elizabeth Long, Partnerships, Refugee, Asylum seeker & Migrant Action (RAMA)
135. Stephanie Neville, Project Manager, Stories of Hope and Home
136. Alison Pickup, Director, Asylum Aid
137. Kerry Smith, CEO, Helen Bamber Foundation
138. Ailsa Dunn Secretary Hay, Brecon and Talgarth Sanctuary for Refugees
139. Reverend Gerard Goshawk, Minister, Six Ways Erdington Baptist Church
140. Clare Henry, Management Committee, Exeter City of Sanctuary
141. Hayley Nelson BEM, Director, Learn for Life Enterprise
142. Sanchita Hosali, CEO, The British Institute of Human Rights
143. Paul Parker, Recording Clerk, Quakers in Britain
144. Clarissa Hanna, Chair, Faversham and Villages Refugee Solidarity Group
145. Dr Judith Turbyne, Chief Executive, Children in Scotland
146. Lucila Granada, CEO, Focus on Labour Exploitation (FLEX)
147. Marguerite Hunter Blair CEO Play Scotland
148. Fizza Qureshi, CEO, Migrants’ Rights Network
149. Robert Moore, Company Secretary, North Wales Regional Equality Network
150. Mark Kieran, CEO, Open Britain
151. Griff Ferris, Senior legal and policy officer, Fair Trials
152. Kris Harris, Policy Coordinator, Project 17
153. Debbie Ariyo OBE, CEO AFRUCA Safeguarding Children
154. Debbie Ariyo OBE, Chair BASNET
155. Pierre Makhlouf, Legal Director, Bail for Immigration Detainees
156. Chris Minnoch, CEO, Legal Aid Practitioners Group
157. Owen Temple, Chair, No To Hassockfield
158. Sneh Aurora, Director, Commonwealth Human Rights Initiative (CHRI)
159. Jim McCormick, Chief Executive, The Robertson Trust
160. John Good, Acting CEO, ActionAid UK
161. Suzanne Swinton, Chief Executive, Scottish Independent Advocacy Alliance
162. Danny Sriskandarajah, CEO, Oxfam GB
163. Hugh Knowles and Miriam Turner, Co-Executive Directors, Friends of the Earth (England, Wales and Northern Ireland)
164. Donna-Louise Cobban, CEO, Beyond Detention
165. James Pearson, Director of Policy & Practice, Alzheimer Scotland
166. Yo Dunn, Director, National Autistic Taskforce
167. Enver Solomon, CEO, Refugee Council
168. Rev Caz Hague, Methodist Minister, Birmingham Circuit
169. Steve Cooke Chair Derbyshire Refugee Solidarity
170. Katrina Ffrench, Founder and Managing Director, UNJUST
171. Dr Shabna Begum, Director of Research, Runnymede Trust.
172. Yasmine Ahmed, UK Director, Human Rights Watch
173. Kamran Mallick, CEO, Disability Rights UK
174. Rosalind Stevens, Project Manager, Civil Society Alliance
175. Jasmine Mohammad, Safety4Sisters Northwest
176. Patricia Durr, CEO, ECPAT UK
177. Kevin Hanratty, Director, Northern Ireland Human Rights Consortium
178. Emily Graham, Head of Campaigns, Safe Passage International

The post Joint civil society statement on the Illegal Migration Bill appeared first on Public Law Project.

Researchers at PLP created the Tracking Automated Government (TAG) register to help increase transparency and accountability of automated decision making systems (ADMs) used by Government.

How it works

• The TAG register has detailed information on over 40 known (ADMs) used by Government, including departments such as the Home Office, Department of Work and Pensions, Ministry of Justice and the Ministry of Defence, regulators including Ofqual, Police constabularies, the Metropolitan Police, and several local authorities.

• Users can search by public authority to see what tools they are using (that we know about), how the tools work; which factors they rely on; and what is known about their potentially unequal impact.

• The TAG register flags where there is a risk of discrimination and where no Data Protection Impact Assessment or Equality Impact Assessment has been done, so users can see where there are risks of data misuse or inequal outcomes.

Who is it for?

The register is designed to be useful for lawyers, researchers and journalists wanting to investigate or document the impact of ADMs, and for individuals affected by their decisions. If someone already knows or suspect that an automated system is being used, the TAG register gives them better tools to investigate further and if necessary, to challenge that system.

Legal Director of the Public Law Project, Ariane Adam said:

“Until recently, people have shared the expectation that important Government decisions affecting them are made by humans. But as the TAG register shows, many are made or informed by computers, some of which are programmed in a way that could exacerbate existing inequality and discrimination, yet so little is known about them.

“We developed the TAG register to lift the lid on what’s going on. The register is open access   so that anyone can see whether decisions about them are made by a robot instead of a human, and if they might be discriminatory or unlawful. The Government’s initiative to increase transparency – the Algorithmic Recording Transparency Standard – has explained only six ADMs in current use. Our TAG register details over 40.

“Although ADMs can make Government more efficient and save money, when they process the data of millions of people to do things like stop their benefits for months, or place them on police watch lists, the risk of these systems unlawfully discriminating and worsening existing inequalities is huge.

“The use of ADMs is often only discovered when strange patterns come to light, such as Black people being incorrectly identified by facial recognition, or disabled people being disproportionately targeted for benefit fraud investigations. Individuals are often unable to document these patterns and may be unaware that an ADM is at the heart of it. It shouldn’t be this way.

“If you don’t know that a system exists, it is impossible to know if there is an unlawful or discriminatory process at work, and you can’t challenge it to put it right. The TAG register flags where there are risks of unlawfulness and, by knowing about that, individuals can hold the state to account when their rights are affected.

“The Government needs to be forthright about how and where ADMs are in use, but it has chosen secrecy by default. That is why we need the TAG register.”

The post New tool lifts lid on secretive government algorithms appeared first on Public Law Project.

Alongside PLP’s focus on access to public law and judicial review in Wales, Hannah Moxsom, PLP’s Justice First Fellow trainee solicitor, is leading a project specifically focusing on asylum support accommodation in Wales in 2021 and 2022.

The Home Office has a statutory obligation to provide asylum seekers with adequate accommodation that meets their needs, however is repeatedly found to be failing to do so. The aim of this project is to work closely with Welsh organisations supporting asylum seekers to ensure that individuals in Wales are provided with safe and adequate accommodation. We want to ensure asylum seekers know their rights and have access to judicial review to challenge the suitability of their accommodation if needed.

Hannah and PLP’s casework team have assisted several asylum seekers to challenge unsafe and inadequate accommodation using judicial review.

If you would like to know more about this project, or if you are impacted by unsafe or unsuitable asylum support accommodation in Wales, please contact Hannah Moxsom.

The post Asylum support accommodation in Wales appeared first on Public Law Project.

Read PLP’s consultation response.

Our response outlines a number of unsatisfactory and disappointing features of the consultation:

• Not enough information has been given about the plans to engage properly with what has been proposed.
• The questionnaire provided for responses is underpinned by flawed, contestable and tendentious assumptions and assertions about the behaviour of asylum seekers and other people subject to immigration control.
• The consultation does not present a fair or balanced picture of the issues: for example, the “in practice” case studies provided within the policy paper reflect only one end of the range of cases which will be affected by the proposed changes.
• The timescale is inadequate for proper consideration.

Quick summary

1. Legal aid: We welcome the specific proposal to provide five hours of non-means tested legal advice for anyone being prioritised for removal, but in order to be effective in helping people to bring their claims early, all of immigration law needs to be brought back into scope. Problems with the detention duty advice scheme and the serious sustainability problems and advice deserts in the legal aid scheme need to be addressed.

2. ‘quicker process for judges to decide claims’: It is unclear what is being proposed, how it differs from the current position, and why it is thought necessary.

3. Fixed recoverable costs: The Independent Review of Administrative Law concluded that there is a need for a robust empirical study on the impact of costs before undertaking such reform in relation to judicial review. Even though the Ministry of Justice is not consulting on any proposals to reform costs in JR, the New Plan has made proposals in relation to costs in immigration JR without such a study. We oppose the proposal on FRC for four reasons (see para 36):
   1. Immigration JR does not come at disproportionate cost to the taxpayer
   2. The change would not address the Home Office’s concern about recoverability
   3. Jackson’s extensive review of civil litigations costs considered and rejected the idea of introducing fixed recoverable costs in JR and made a better alternative proposal
   4. Fixed costs would have a significant chilling effect on access to justice.

4. Notice periods: It is unclear how this proposal relates to other proposals or how putting the notice period in statute would help meet the Government’s objective. Any notice period must be long enough to ensure access to justice which means (para 50) people must be able to access a lawyer who is ready willing and able to provide legal advice and be paid; is willing and able to do so under the seal of professional privilege and would have access to relevant documents and time to consider them; and would after providing advice be ready, willing and able to challenge removal directions in court if appropriate.

The post New Plan for Immigration: PLP consultation response appeared first on Public Law Project.

The successful candidate will be a team player, working closely both with other members of the finance and operations department and with our lawyers, researchers and events team to ensure they have the support needed to deliver our charitable activities. Your blend of skills and experience across HR, compliance, premises and IT and information management will be crucial to helping us to ensure people who are disadvantaged and marginalised can hold the state to account for unfair decisions.

This role includes a wide range of responsibilities and the successful candidate will enjoy the variety in the role and have the core skills necessary to provide excellent management of all areas of the post including areas where you will not be expert. This includes strong problem solving skills, commitment to taking responsibility and excellent time and task management. You will be dedicated to self-development and learning and be able to identify when you yourself need professional advice or additional support. Within this context expertise or particular interests in one area, for example in HR, would also be beneficial to the role.

Prioritising development of PLP as a resilient, connected organisation is one of the three central organisational goals PLP has adopted in our strategy for 2021-22. Your role will be critical to our ability to mitigate the effects of the external crisis on the effectiveness of our team, playing a key role in developing and leading a programme of well-being training and resources and fostering a culture of psychological safety and inclusivity. As we learn how to work optimally in a hybrid working environment you will be crucial in ensuring our office and technology is geared to support collaborative working and will contribute to developing our thinking on supporting internal communication and connectivity. PLP is a diverse team and benefits from an inclusive culture – your role will help us build on this strength.

PLP support staff have the opportunity to be involved directly in the work of the charity through membership of one of our working groups. Working groups such as for Benefit Sanctions or Public Law and Technology – shape our work whether that is challenging unlawful withdrawal of welfare from people with mental health conditions or investigating how the use of algorithms in government decision making might unlawfully discriminate against minorities.

PLP wants to work with the best possible person for this role. To achieve that goal, we can be flexible. Whilst this post is conceived as a full-time post, part-time hours, job-share and other flexible working arrangements will also be considered.

Please download the full Job Pack and Application Form for further details.

Information Pack

Application Form

Information Pack-Large Print

Application Form-Large Print

Equal Opportunities Form

Please email all completed forms to hr@publiclawproject.org.uk by 11:59pm on Wednesday, 19 May 2021.

PLP is an equal opportunities and Disability Confident Employer

The post We’re recruiting-Operations Manager appeared first on Public Law Project.

– to significantly increase the number of people financially eligible for legal aid under the means regulations;

– to increase the accessibility of legal aid for people whom parliament intended should access it, and;

– to significantly improve the sustainability, accessibility, and quality of publicly funded advice    

Going forward, PLP will continue to engage with the Ministry of Justice as part of its Means Test Review, which is due to consult on proposals to change the Legal Aid means tests in Spring 2021.

PLP remains well placed to assist individuals and organisations who have experienced difficulty in accessing legal aid as a result in inequities in the current system of means testing, with our casework team achieving successes in recent cases concerning ‘trapped’ and ‘imaginary’ capital. We have also developed resources for practitioners who encounter these issues in future.

Resources:

• Update on PLP’s work on Civil Legal Aid Policy
• PLP’s submission to the Justice Select Committee.
• PLP’s letter to the Lord Chancellor Re: Exceptional Case Funding and the Legal Action Plan.
• PLP’s research: Improving Exceptional Case Funding: Responding to Covid-19.
• New resource for Legal Aid practitioner’s: Eligibility and ‘trapped’ capital.
• Latest: Now in force legal aid rule change to benefit home owners and domestic abuse survivors.

The post Update: PLP’s work on Civil Legal Aid Policy appeared first on Public Law Project.

Read PLP’s submission to the Independent Human Rights Act Review

The Government recently established the Independent Human Rights Act Review (IHRAR) to “consider how [the HRA] is working in practice” after twenty years in operation.

The Review asks a number of questions against a background “perception that… courts have increasingly been presented with questions of policy”.

In PLP’s submission, we show that the HRA is a carefully crafted legislative scheme which strikes the correct balance between Parliament, the executive and the courts, as well as between the between domestic courts and Strasbourg.

We draw on academic research and practitioner experience to demonstrate that many criticisms of the Act are exaggerated or misconceived and that the Act is largely working as intended, as an effective tool for securing fundamental rights whilst respecting democratic legitimacy.

We strongly recommend against changes to this piece of legislation.

If you would like to get in touch with us about our submission, please contact our Research Fellow in Constitutional Law, Lewis Graham at l.graham@publiclawproject.org.uk

The post Human Rights Act Review – PLP submission appeared first on Public Law Project.

Public Law Project has prepared a practice note and a precedent to assist practitioners following the decision in PLP client Claire’s case – R (oao GR) v Director Of Legal Aid Casework [2020] EWHC 3140 (Admin). The decision establishes that the Director has a discretion to value assets other than money on an ‘equitable basis’ (i.e. by valuing at ‘nil’ so that it does not affect eligibility) when determining eligibility for legal aid.

The note sets out the full implications of the judgment and how it can be applied to low income homeowners who may not initially appear eligible for legal aid due to ‘trapped capital’ in a family home which they cannot access. It is likely to be of particular interest to family practitioners assisting victims of domestic violence, but the judgment does apply across all areas of civil law.

The precedent can be adapted and used to make representations to the Director of Legal Aid Casework in supporting new applications for certificated funding or to request a review of a previous refusal, in light of the recent judgment. PLP is aware of a number of individuals who have successfully relied on the judgment since 24 November 2020 and is continuing to monitor its implementation.

Links to resources for legal aid practitioners

• READ: Practice note on legal aid eligibility and ‘trapped’ capital – updated 26 July 2021
• READ: ANNEX – Precedent for practitioners – updated 26 July 2021

Are you an individual affected by these issues?

PLP are a small charity specialising in public law and unfortunately we do not have capacity  to advise on eligibility in individual cases, before an application for legal aid has been made.  A legal aid lawyer specialising in your legal issue (i.e. family) could assist to make an application for legal aid, who should be made aware of the judgment and the resources available on this page. Details of family lawyers able to provide legal aid can be found on PLP’s signposting list or by using the search on the Ministry of Justice website.”

The post New resource for legal aid practitioners: Eligibility and ‘trapped’ capital appeared first on Public Law Project.

READ: Plus ça change: Brexit and the flaws of delegated legislation system
 By Alexandra Sinclair and Dr Joe Tomlinson, Public Law Project

The authors show that the UK’s withdrawal led to a ‘tsunami’ of delegated legislation in the form of statutory instruments (SIs). These are laws which, unlike Acts of Parliament are often not debated or scrutinised, cannot be amended, and are virtually impossible for MPs to stop.

• Policy change made by the ‘back door’ avoided Parliamentary scrutiny
• Hundreds of laws were ‘rubber stamped’ with MPs and Peers powerless to stop them
• Government had a ‘free-hand’ to put regulations into law-making

Concerns raised by the report include:

• Volume: During the 2017-2019 parliamentary session, 1,835 instruments were laid in total. 622 of those were Brexit SIs, representing 34% of all instruments during that session.
• The Word count of Treasury and HMRC SIs increased by 300% between 2009-2019 & 2017-2019
• The average page length of an EU Exit SI was 18 pages; that is almost double the average for 2015-2016
• Poor and non-existent impact assessments: There was no impact assessment made on massive changes to the UK chemicals regime which makes up 7% of UK GDP. The Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee relied on a BBC News article to assess the impacts of the legal changes of the Law Enforcement and Security (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019
• Henry VIII powers: 142 of the 622 Brexit instruments were used to amend primary legislation that had already been passed by Parliament
• Lack of debate: The Government used the urgency procedure 30 times. This process gives SIs legal effect immediately, before they have been debated
• The Financial Services (Miscellaneous) (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019 were 26 pages, made 36 different amendments to existing legislation and was debated for 11 minutes in the Commons
• Errors and mistakes: In the 2017-2019 session, the proportion of instruments needing correction more than doubled. 97 SIs were laid before Exit Day to fix the mistakes of earlier SIs

Dr Joe Tomlinson, Research Director of the Public Law Project said:

“During the withdrawal process, thousands of pages of complex laws and regulations were ‘rubber-stamped,’ with MPs – let alone the general public – having little chance of understanding what laws were passed. There was no serious chance of stopping any of them from reaching the statue books.

“The reality is that this gave the Government a free hand in law-making and Parliament provided little scrutiny.”

“Much of Brexit legislation was highly technical and well-suited to a streamlined process, which is what the system of delegated legislation is there to provide. On the whole, it could be said the system coped well despite all of the pressures, but the Brexit process brought many of its problems to the fore.”

Bills (primary legislation) are debated thoroughly by both Houses of Parliament and in committee and can be amended, Statutory Instruments (SIs) are debated for a fraction of the time (if at all), and cannot be amended.

Whilst problems with SIs and the process of delegated legislation are already well documented, this report is the first time those concerns have been evaluated in the context of the Brexit process.

“It is the combination of deficiencies that is most concerning. SIs are not meant to bring about important changes in policy because of the lack of scrutiny they allow, but many did exactly that. Combining that feature with their complexity, volume, lack of scrutiny, and the widespread absence of consultation and meaningful participation, meant that Parliament was shut out of a significant part of law-making.

“Over 620 Brexit SIs were laid during the period up to Exit Day, and it is clear that many more will be needed as the process continues. Those instruments touched on every part of UK life, from food safety to immigration to transport. Very significant policies such as alterations to deportation thresholds and changes to social security law were placed in secondary legislation with no explanation as to why and no mechanism to check the Government’s decision to do so.”

Towards reform

Dr Joe Tomlinson said: “The problems with our system of law making are now arising in relation to COVID-19. Addressing these problems should be at the core of the contemporary reform agenda within Parliament.

“The moment is ripe for incremental reform that will foster the making of better law in a

modern state that often needs to make lots of law quickly.”

If you would like to follow up on any of the issues raised in the report, please contact our Research Fellow Alexandra Sinclair, a.sinclair@publiclawproject.org.uk

The post ‘Tsunami’ of EU withdrawal laws ‘rubber stamped’: Latest PLP research appeared first on Public Law Project.