Regrettably, the Government’s new Bill is likely to make the UK’s asylum system more unfair, unworkable and unsafe. The proposals appear to be driven by short-term expediency – in particular, by the need to appear tough on immigration – rather than the requirements of justice and respect for human rights and international law. 

Some of the Government’s main proposals include: 

Appeals which are less independent and expert: The Bill aims to abolish asylum appeals heard by judges in tribunals. Instead, it intends to replace them with an Independent Immigration Appeals Authority (IIAA) staffed by “adjudicators”, who will not be judges and need not even be legally qualified.  

Asylum appeals involve protecting human rights of the gravest life-and-limb importance – including the right to life and the prohibition of torture. A decision of this magnitude requires the attention of a fully trained and independent judge, not a system designed to prioritise speed over justice. 

Weakening human rights: The Government plans to downgrade the protection of the right to respect for private and family life in UK law (Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights). It will do this by interfering with how appeals can be decided, forcing adjudicators to give pre-eminent weight to immigration control rather than human rights.  

This is despite independent research confirming that it is rare to win immigration cases on Article 8 grounds and that successful cases involve very serious interferences with a person’s private and family life. The Government is setting up litigation with the European Court of Human Rights based on a non-issue for very little, if any, benefit and despite its own repeated commitments to respect international law. 

PLP believes that it should be for independent judges to decide the balance between the rights of individuals and the public interest in human rights cases on their merits, without interference from the other branches of government. 

Placing disproportionate financial burdens on refugees: The Government proposes that individuals granted protection should make financial payments to the Home Office, up to £10,000. The Government provides no estimate as to how much is likely to be generated by this policy and what the costs of enforcing it would be. Its financial benefits are, therefore, wholly unclear. Worse, the policy places an excessive financial burden on refugees, undermining their ability to start a new life and integrate as equal members of British society. 

These proposals will weigh the UK’s asylum system even further against victims of modern slavery and refugees fleeing persecution and harm. Public Law Project’s February 2025 report on the experiences of Albanian nationals illustrated the many ways in which the UK’s asylum system “punishes the victim”.  PLP is concerned that this Bill is another step on that path. 

The only certainty is that this Bill will produce significant litigation in the courts because of the real risk that these proposals breach human rights. This could include cases up to the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg. This contradicts the Government’s regular commitments to respect international law and the European Convention on Human Rights in particular.  

Instead of these unwelcome proposals, the Government should be working towards an asylum system that is fair, workable and safe by:  

Fixing the immigration rules: First, ensuring that the Home Secretary cannot make arbitrary and unfair changes to the Immigration Rules without consultation or parliamentary approval, by requiring consultation with people and organisations with lived experience of the asylum system and requiring changes to be approved by Parliament before they come into effect. We saw this troubling use of the Immigration Rules recently, for example, to undermine refugee rights to remain in the UK, by making decisions to grant refugee status subject to review every 30 months.  

Legal aid in detention: Second, providing automatic legal aid to people who are in immigration detention within 48 hours. Because of so-called “legal aid deserts”, a survey in 2025 by Bail for Immigration Detainees found that only 27% of respondents held in immigration removal centres had a legal aid solicitor. Guaranteeing early legal aid will ensure that people who are in fear for their life, safety and future are supported at a time of extreme vulnerability and helped to navigate the confusing labyrinth that is the UK immigration system.  

In response to the Bill, Jamie Peters, PLP’s Interim CEO, said that: 

“The purpose of the UK’s asylum system is to protect people who face death, serious harm and persecution abroad. It also enables survivors and refugees to become valued neighbours, colleagues, friends, and partners and to heal in safety with the support of their family. This Bill undermines all that and for no proven benefit. Less independent and expert appeals, weakening human rights, and undermining the UK’s commitment to the ECHR will achieve no good. PLP believes in a fair, workable and safe asylum system and these reforms will take us further away from that. The Government should abandon this Bill and put forward a plan based on PLP’s recommendations which is fair, workable, and safe.” 

In making “the most significant policy proposals in a generation” so soon after additional major changes to immigration law, the Bill will make the UK’s immigration system even more complex and unwieldy. The House of Lords’ Justice and Home Affairs Committee recently commented that the “farrago of immigration rules and legislation…[is] anathema to good governance” and causes “delay, additional cost, poor decision-making, and miscarriages of justice.” This Bill is another step on that regrettable path.

^{Image: Mstyslav Chernov/Unframe}

The post Unfair, unworkable and unsafe: Government’s new asylum Bill   appeared first on Public Law Project.

The funding comes from The National Lottery Community Fund’s Solidarity Fund – key part of our efforts to deliver our strategy and address inequity and inequality by supporting experienced organisations working with communities facing poverty, disadvantage and discrimination. It is central to their commitment to put community agency, power and control at the heart of our funding in England, as they plan to distribute at least £3 billion of life-changing grants by 2030. 

For PLP, this investment comes at a critical moment. Across many areas of public life, the people most affected by unfair decisions are too often excluded from the processes that shape them. At the same time, democratic institutions, the rule of law and access to justice are under increasing pressure. This funding will help us strengthen our ability to work alongside communities to challenge injustice, build evidence for change and ensure that people with lived experience have a greater role in shaping the decisions that affect their lives. 

A key part of this work will be creating spaces where community organisations, campaigners, lived experience leaders, researchers, lawyers and policy makers can come together as equal partners. We know that meaningful systemic change happens when different forms of knowledge are valued and when those closest to a problem are central to developing solutions. The Community Knowledge Exchange will help build those connections, strengthen collective power and support collaboration across sectors and communities. 

In working to establish this partnership, we have been struck by the Fund’s collaborative approach, willingness to engage with us as a genuine partner, and commitment to supporting ambitious, long-term work. That kind of sustained investment is rare, but it is essential for organisations seeking to create deep and lasting change. 

We have also been inspired by the wider cohort of organisations supported through the Solidarity Fund. Bringing together experienced, values-driven organisations with a shared commitment to community power, solidarity and social justice creates opportunities not only for learning and collaboration, but also for building the collective strength needed to meet the challenges ahead. 

Being part of this cohort is both humbling and energising. We are deeply grateful to The National Lottery Community Fund and to National Lottery players for their confidence in our work. Together, we hope to build stronger communities, strengthen accountability and help create a more just society for everyone. 

The post National Lottery funding supports PLP’s work to tackle inequality   appeared first on Public Law Project.

Designing good policy isn’t easy, but it is possible. However, when we get it wrong, the consequences can be devastating. Government policy decisions do not affect each of us equally. When policy results in unintended, or worse, deliberate harms for marginalised groups, we need to look to the process of policy design.  

If we want to build fair solutions to the challenges facing society today, we need to start with the process. The principles below show how governments can design policy in a way that works for everyone — not just the majority. 

1. Participation 

Responding to consultations is an important part of any public affairs toolkit. In the last year, government departments have run more than 600 consultations on a wide range of topics ranging from digital ID to company tax returns.  

But how effective are these consultations in practice?  Their actual effectiveness was summed up by the Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister, Darren Jones, when speaking about the digital ID consultation, “This consultation is not a performative consultation, it’s a genuine one. That’s why we’re not just doing a kind of online consultation in the way that normal consultations might happen.”  

The suggestion from a senior minister that most consultations are ‘performative’ is deeply concerning. For PLP, strengthening the accountability of public bodies is central to our work; consultations must move beyond being a box-ticking exercise. 

In 2025, the High Court ruled that the Department for Work and Pensions had acted unlawfully by running a misleading consultation on benefit assessment reforms. The proposed reforms to the Work Capability Assessment were presented during consultations as a way to support Disabled people into work, without making clear that the real motivating factor for the reforms was cost savings.  

PLP client Ellen Clifford’s legal challenge exposed just how flawed the consultation process can be. Rather than enabling genuine public participation, the Work Capability Assessment consultation was used to push a false narrative about motivation for reforms.  

If one consultation can be ‘genuine’, then all of them should be. Gathering diverse perspectives and expert opinions can only produce better, fairer policy — if they are actually taken into account.  

2. Lived experience 

As well as public participation, policy design must specifically seek input from groups with lived experience relevant to the issue at hand. When public services are being developed, reviewed or reformed, engaging with the perspectives and experiences of those who actually use them results in a more effective, and fairer, system.  

In 2025, the Right to (Addiction) Recovery Bill in Scotland, the Scottish Health, Social Care and Sport Committee ran a dedicated lived experience engagement process to their call for evidence. Interviews with Committee members have later showed that this engagement challenged their biases and changed their perspectives on addiction. 

Lived experience engagement allowed the Committee to investigate whether the bill would really meet the needs of those recovering from addiction, and questions raised by participants were later asked to witnesses in oral evidence sessions.  

One Committee member said, “I’m sitting [and] writing down the potential amendments to the Bill directly from input from people with lived experience”. 

The third sector has a major role to play in facilitating this process; multiple Scottish Committees have partnered with NGOs to set up lived experience committees as part of consultative processes. Although charities should not be a filter of what lived experience is ‘valid’, this case study shows how charities can achieve impact through their networks and convening power — and how decision makers can incorporate lived experience to improve their work.  

3. Scrutiny 

Recent changes to refugee status in the UK have been dominating the headlines. Refugee status has become temporary, with leave to remain that refugees receive reduced from five years to two and a half. Further proposed changes could mean it would take a refugee twenty years to become eligible for permanent settlement.  

The fear and lack of stability this creates for refugees putting down roots in the UK, and the probable increase to the asylum backlog that will result from doubling how often cases are reviewed, are deeply problematic. 

However, there is another cause for concern. These changes were pushed through as changes to Immigration Rules, without parliamentary scrutiny. The Home Secretary has expansive powers to make such policy changes without proper oversight or scrutiny — raising important questions about accountability. 

The process of parliamentary scrutiny provides an important opportunity to improve (or in some cases, mitigate the risks of) a change in policy. If this change had gone through the legislative process, it would have been debated, amended and potentially rejected. Migrant and refugee rights organisations would have also had a stronger opportunity to warn against the harmful impacts of these changes.  

No government should be introducing life-altering changes with so little scrutiny. The legislative process is a critical period for stakeholders, including charities, campaigners and lived experience groups, to have their voices heard. Legislative scrutiny opens up influencing opportunities beyond those handpicked by the government. It is crucial that civil society and the wider public stand ready to take these opportunities.  

Join our upcoming webinars to explore this discussion further. 

The post Three ways to make policy fairer by design  appeared first on Public Law Project.

Climate change isn’t just an environmental issue. It’s a public law failure. 

This crisis we are living through is shaped by countless government decisions:  what can be built or extracted, where resources and funding flow, who is protected from harm, and who is left to bear the risks. And as ever, those least responsible for the damage being caused are paying the highest prices.  

Many communities are already experiencing devastating impacts, while climate breakdown threatens to deepen inequalities across housing, health, migration, and access to justice. These harms compound and reinforce one another. 

Public Law Project has always been about protecting rights and fighting for justice. Over the years, that mission has taken many forms. We have used public law to challenge unfair decision-making,  to hold public bodies to account, and to stand alongside people and communities most often shut out of power. 

For the first time, PLP‘s strategy now explicitly includes climate change. The reason is simple: justice. Climate change magnifies injustice, and public law is one of the few tools capable of exposing and confronting the decisions that drive environmental harm. 

As interim CEO of PLP, I am truly excited about this new chapter of our work — one shaped by experience, grounded in justice, and focused on how public law can meet the realities of the climate crisis.  

Communities, public law, and environmental decision-making 

Having spent over a decade at Friends of the Earth, working in roles ranging from community organiser to CEO, I saw first-hand how public decisions can profoundly affect communities — sometimes offering protection and opportunity, but too often exacerbating harm and exclusion.  

I had the opportunity to work at both ends of the scale: from the UN climate talks where international legal treaties bring nations together to tackle shared challenges, to communities far removed from the corridors of power but on the frontline of environmental struggles. 

Across that spectrum, I saw communities empowered to take on the state through judicial reviews and planning inquiries. I saw people stand up for their rights and use the courts to demonstrate that the law should be a tool for justice for all, and not something to wield power against those already marginalised. And I saw communities working alongside NGOs, lawyers, and campaigners to successfully challenge the fossil fuel industry time and again — most notably in defeating the insidious fracking industry. 

Many of these community-led victories did more than stop individual projects. They resulted in landmark legal rulings that improved decision-making and access to justice for everyone.  

One powerful example is the recent Supreme Court win by Sarah Finch and the Weald Action Group, which challenged the approval of fossil fuel extraction and set an important precedent for future cases. 

“The Weald Action Group turned to the law after years fighting oil extraction in our area. It was a big learning curve. I had no expectation that our fight over one oil development would have such a big impact. It’s exciting to be part of one of the increasing number of cases that are challenging the status quo on climate around the world. The law is a powerful tool for climate campaigners – and we need to defend it from regressive forces who want to use the law against us.” Sarah Finch (Campaigner, Weald Action Group) 

As PLP increasingly engages with environmental injustice, our long-standing commitment to standing alongside marginalised communities will remain central to our work. 

The intersection of climate, race, class, and justice 

PLP is proud to work in solidarity with marginalised groups, using our power, privilege, and expertise to help create a fairer society through public law. Much of this work has focused on immigration, where we have challenged unjust systems and policies that deny people safety, dignity, and fairness. 

We know that climate change will intensify these injustices, and we will see a rise in those looking for a safe haven as they flee from increasingly unsafe areas of the world. At the same time, it is working-class communities and racialised communities who are on the sharp end of environmental injustices. It is often poorer areas of society most blighted by air pollution or facing unwanted infrastructure projects at their doorstep. 

The connections between environmental harm, race, class, and inequality are clear, and PLP will be making and strengthening those links and joining forces with the movements for justice that span across them all.  

Environmental justice must be rooted in social justice, and public law has a critical role to play in achieving both. 

Our ‘Public Law and the Planet’ conference in March marks the beginning of a new chapter for us, bringing together these issues and showcasing how public law can be used to challenge environmental injustice and support movements for justice in all their forms. 

I hope you can join PLP as we explore this new work.

– Jamie Peters, Interim CEO of PLP

Image credit: Creative Commons / Ivan Radic

The post Climate change is a public law issue  appeared first on Public Law Project.

More commonly known as the Hillsborough Law, this landmark Bill seeks to create a legal duty called “the duty of candour and assistance” for public authorities to cooperate with, and tell the truth to, public inquiries. It is the fulfilment of the Government’s manifesto commitment to provide justice for the families of the Hillsborough disaster victims, who for decades faced at best obfuscation in their search for the truth.  

The delay to the Bill comes amidst widespread concerns about a new Government amendment to the Bill, which would have made the security services’ – for example, MI5 and MI6’s – cooperation subject to the approval of the head of the service. 

The Government’s pause provides a welcome opportunity for Ministers to reflect on how to amend the Bill more generally. Public Law Project (PLP) supports the Bill but believes it should be strengthened, particularly by extending the duty of candour and assistance to a wider range of accountability mechanisms beyond public inquiries and investigations, such as ombudsmen, commissioners, and inspectorates. (Read PLP’s full recommendations briefing here.) 

This legislation is the product of decades of campaigning and is a very welcome move. The victims’ families and supporters should be applauded for their tenacity and commitment to justice.  

The requirement to be candid – to be honest and transparent, to act in good faith, to be open to admitting mistakes, and to learn from errors – is an important part of public law. Indeed, public law has been described as a game best played “with all cards face upwards on the table”.  

For example, in judicial review – the process whereby a court determines whether a public body has complied with the law – there has long been an existing “duty of candour” requiring public bodies to disclose information to the court enabling the judge to assess the legality of the public body’s actions.  This is because judicial review, like many other public law mechanisms of accountability, is a “partnership based on a common aim, namely the maintenance of the highest standards of public administration” (R v Lancashire County Council ex p. Huddleston [1986] 2 All ER 941).  

It is essential for public confidence in state officials, justice for people who have been wronged by the state, and the search for truth that public bodies are candid and transparent in as many accountability mechanisms as possible. This is even more true when the public do not have equal access to the information or records held by public bodies and can face an obstructionist attitude to its release because of its embarrassing nature.  

A fair and inclusive society will not be achieved until everyone is entitled to truth and justice – especially people who are marginalised and most reliant on the state for the protection of their rights and dignity.  

The Government should use this pause in the Bill to urgently think about additional ways in which it could be strengthened. PLP’s recommendations are a first step in that direction. 

Read our House of Commons’ Report stage briefing.

_{Photo: Edmund Nigel Gall / CC}

The post The Hillsborough Law: Honesty, transparency and public law  appeared first on Public Law Project.

As the Constitution Committee report says, ‘the future of our democracy relies on us protecting the rule of law against challenge’. To defend the rule of law effectively, we must tell a positive story about its value for our society and culture, and about democracy, fairness, and empowerment. 

Hostility on the horizon

Many in the UK feel that our legal and constitutional systems no longer work as they should. Attacks on the judiciary and human rights are often in the headlines, and the Government’s recent announcements on asylum policy would weaken the prohibition of torture and the right to a private and family life provisions in the UK. 

A crucial part of the rule of law is that justice must be seen to be done. The report highlights how the state of our policing—evidence of bias and discrimination within police forces, and their inability to deal with some of the most visible crime—undermines that belief as well as trust in the existence and value of the rule of law.  

PLP has also seen disillusionment with the rule of law resulting from growing economic inequality, failing access to justice, underinvestment in public services, and the increasing and unregulated use of AI by public bodies. Polling has also highlighted a strong correlation between economic deprivation and anti-immigration extremism. 

A positive story 

Public law defines what the government can and can’t do, and what it must do. These legal rights bring us closer to a society founded on fairness, equality and justice. For many of these rights, we rely on international frameworks, built after the atrocities of the Second World War. 

Domestically, judicial review is one of our most important legal rights when it comes to government accountability. If you are affected by a government or public body decision which is unfair or unlawful, you have the right to challenge that decision and have your voice heard in court, and you don’t have to be able to afford legal fees. 

Indeed, as the Constitution Committee asserts: ‘the power to hold the Government to account for breaches of the law is a vital part of the rule of law’. We are glad the Committee has supported our call for Government to ‘refrain from presenting the judicial review process as a blocker to government action’, and we hope the Prime Minister will reconsider this damaging characterisation of judicial review. 

Keeping a focus on communities 

Speaking at the Constitution Committee’s Evidence Session, Shameem highlighted fairness as her favourite component of the rule of law, as it ‘brings to life the law for marginalised individuals and makes sure that the law is not only accurate but just’. Shameem spoke about how empowering it can be, as an individual, to bring a case against a government and hold it to account, and how this can help prevent cynicism. If people understand their legal rights and how to enforce them, they can resolve their problems, often much faster and more easily too. 

The rule of law isn’t only about big political issues— it can make our day-to-day lives easier too. If politicians want to halt disengagement and deprivation, helping people to better understand and enforce their rights is a good starting point. 

What next? 

As we look ahead to the policy and legislative agenda for 2026, PLP would like to see urgent and sustained attention on: 

• Improving access to justice: an essential condition of the rule of law is that people in need must have access to legal aid and a lawyer. Investment in the legal aid system will be worthwhile in combatting disenfranchisement. As the Constitution Committee says, we are at risk of a society where ‘justice is available to only those who can afford it’. Costs in judicial review should be reformed so that this crucial element of the rule of law is affordable for all.  

• Upholding and protecting key international rule of law frameworks: recent immigration announcements have shown the Government is considering weakening,  rather than strengthening, our human rights. As the tides of authoritarianism rise across Europe and the world, we EUSSmust protect the international bedrock of the rule of law. 

• Better AI safeguards: what does the principle of accountability mean when governments use automation to make decisions? It is disappointing that the Constitution Committee didn’t highlight this point from our evidence.  Paying heed to digital rights is an essential component of rule of law in today’s world, as are the provision of practical mechanisms to challenge automated decisions.  

The post The rule of law: Addressing threats, seizing opportunities   appeared first on Public Law Project.

PLP is also acting for another family challenging the lawfulness of the Regulations themselves, as applied to EUSS status holders who got their status after applying late, where the Home Office recognised there were good reasons for them applying late. 

Background 

B was born in April 2023 at just 25 weeks’ gestation and spent the first months of his life in hospital, where he received intensive neonatal care. He remained in hospital until September 2023 and continued to need significant follow-up treatment, including a later readmission. 

While still caring for their medically vulnerable child and living on a low income, B’s parents were shocked to receive an NHS bill in 2024 for more than £153,000. The scale of the charge caused significant financial and emotional distress at an already extremely difficult time. 

B’s father, a Swedish–Somali dual national, moved to the UK for work in 2019 and was granted pre-settled status under the EUSS in 2020, later progressing to settled status in 2025. B’s mother joined him in the UK in 2022 and was also granted pre-settled status. Under the terms of the EU-UK Withdrawal Agreement and the EUSS, children born to parents who are protected by the Withdrawal Agreement are entitled to EUSS status as well.  

When B was born, he was extremely premature and admitted straight into intensive care. His parents mistakenly believed he would automatically be treated as British. They also then experienced delays in obtaining documents that they had been advised were needed to make an EUSS application. As a result of these events, an application for his EUSS status was unfortunately not made within three months of B’s birth, the current deadline for newborn children. When the family applied to the EUSS on his behalf in May 2024, the Home Office accepted that the application was late for a good reason and granted him status. The guidance recognises that children will usually have reasonable grounds where their parents did not apply in time, and B was granted pre-settled status on that basis. 

Why the NHS charges were wrong 

Our two main arguments for this case were: 

1. The NHS Trust misapplied the NHS Charging Regulations 

B was entitled to free NHS treatment during the first three months of his life, as the child of an EU citizen protected by the Withdrawal Agreement. However, PLP argued that, under the NHS Charging Regulations, he was also entitled to further free treatment after he was 3 months old, where this treatment was part of a continuous course of treatment. His exemption from charges should have lasted until that course of treatment ended, or if he left the UK (which he had not).  

B’s hospital care flowed entirely from the complications of his premature birth. Because that treatment began under the three-month exemption, the exemption should have applied to the whole period of related care. The Trust failed to apply this rule. 

There was a second error. Under the NHS Charging Regulations, a person with a pending EUSS application cannot be charged. The Trust incorrectly assumed that B’s entitlement began only when the Home Office issued his certificate of application, validating his application, in August 2024. But the certificate confirmed that his application had been made months earlier, in May 2024. This meant he should not have been charged for treatment received during that time. 

2. The Charging Regulations and Guidance themselves may be unlawful 

Beyond the NHS Trust’s errors, PLP has also acted for families who are challenging the legality of the Regulations and Guidance themselves. We have argued that under the Withdrawal Agreement, once a late EUSS application is accepted, the status granted should take retroactive effect. In other words, the person should be treated as though they had applied for their EUSS status in time and were always protected by the Withdrawal Agreement.   

People with EUSS status are not chargeable for NHS care. PLP argued on the family’s behalf that the NHS was not entitled to charge B’s family for any NHS treatment he may have received in the past, once he obtained EUSS status: his late application was accepted with good reason, and so he should be treated as having been protected by the Withdrawal Agreement, continuously, from birth. 

Outcome 

The NHS Trust ultimately accepted that it had applied the regulations incorrectly and agreed to cancel the entire debt. 

The financial and emotional toll of this case on the family was enormous. For more than a year, they lived under the weight of a bill larger than most UK mortgages, issued just months after the birth of their child, who required serious medical treatment. 

“I was so low and devastated because my child was born very premature. After he received treatment I was invoiced. I was so surprised… we were not able to pay that level of debt. We have been affected in so many ways.” 

The family urged others who receive incorrect NHS invoices to seek help, saying they would refer anyone in their situation to Public Law Project. 

Why this matters 

NHS charging rules are complex, and mistakes can have enormous consequences. Families who are lawfully entitled to free NHS care can be incorrectly presented with life-changing bills, at exactly the moment they are coping with medical crises. 

This case shows why robust legal oversight and advocacy is essential when public bodies are making decisions with such serious consequences for individuals. It also shows why public bodies must understand and apply the rights guaranteed by the Withdrawal Agreement. 

PLP continues to challenge incorrect charging decisions and to pursue another legal challenge to the Regulations and Guidance themselves, which will be heard on 17 and 18 December 2025 in the Royal Courts of Justice.  

No family should face financial ruin because of errors in the application of the law. 

^{Photo: Iryna Inshyna / Shutterstock}

The post PLP helps family overturn £153,000 hospital bill  appeared first on Public Law Project.

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.

I am Jamie Peters, interim CEO for Public Law Project, covering for Shameem Ahmad whilst she is on maternity leave. It is my third week at PLP and I was hoping to be an audience member but I am stepping in for Shameem for today and for this section of the conference – and of course very happy to do so.

Paying tribute to Professor Conor Gearty

In addition to taking on these duties, I have been asked by Shameem and all at PLP to pay tribute to Professor Conor Gearty. I  know that many of you here would have been surprised and very saddened to hear of us untimely passing in September. Conor addressed this conference several times, most recently in 2022 and again, by popular demand, in 2023. He was a giant of the public law and human rights world, and his last article for London Review of Books is reproduced by kind permission, in your delegate packs, by way of a small tribute. It’s a typical example of his forthright and accessible writing about the law and the impact of judicial decision making. 

We would ask for a minute’s silence but though I was never lucky enough to have worked alongside Conor, I am assured that silence was very much not on Conor’s agenda. 

Strengthening the Constitution

This year’s conference, aptly titled ‘Strengthening the Constitution’, feels both timely and relevant.  We need frameworks that are robust and indeed resilient to withstand the pressures of the present – but also the threats of the future.  We know that our Constitutional frameworks do not exist in a vacuum, and we cannot ignore the increasing pressures posed by the global rise in authoritarianism.

Indeed, the outside world in the UK and in many other areas of the world is growing increasingly volatile and also hostile to what many of us are working towards – principles of inclusion, equality and justice are not principles that much of the current direction of political discourse is making any easier to achieve.

We cannot afford, to just batten down the hatches and hope the rule of law withstands the storms. We must use the moment we are in to secure, embed and advance the principles of fairness, accountability and justice – values that we can all coalesce around – to not just protect, but promote and future-proof our Constitution.

A “mixed bag”

If we were to give a general assessment of the current state of the rule of law in the UK, I’d say that it is a bit of a mixed bag. Some good – but there’s definitely room for improvement.

In terms of some of those highlights:

• We had the Prorogation case and the Rwanda cases, where under immense political pressure the courts ruled against government but grounded those rulings in legally coherent arguments. The judiciary truly acted without fear or favour. The Rwanda case in particular, highlighted the importance of following international law as part of the rule of law.
• Covid fines levelled at the PM and the Chancellor and the Leader of the Opposition was also under investigation, which demonstrated that concept of equality before the law.
• The order that was brought after the racist and Islamophobic riots last summer by the police and the judiciary, and Parliamentarians and the Executive supporting them in their endeavors.
• The introduction of the Hillsborough law which we expect will facilitate increased transparency, honesty and accountability.
• And we shouldn’t take for granted the emphasis from both the Attorney General and Prime Minister on the importance of the rule of law, acting as a ‘North Star.’

It is right that we celebrate these wins, yet it is pertinent, all the more so given the rise of authoritarianism, that none of us – the Government included, rest on our laurels.

At the Labour Party Conference a few weeks ago, Lord Hermer the Attorney General recalled that this time last year he had said “the rule of law is back”. He went on to say: “I meant it and I hope we’ve shown it.”  To give credit where it’s due, it would be fair to say we have seen progress  under the new Government, but there still remains significant pressures on the rule of law in the UK.

This includes under-investment in the justice system and legal aid, hostile rhetoric regarding immigration leading to incoherent policies which have to be adjudicated by the judiciary. We see a concerning increasing trend for judicial independence and the legal sector to be questioned.
We cannot ignore the treatment of racialised people, and in particular Black people, by the criminal justice system. We must also be alert to the watering down of our protest rights; the law should be protecting, not encroaching on, our fundamental human rights.

We’re also seeing an increased use of automated decision-making, but a lack of transparency to accompany that which makes it difficult for people to test the legality of these decisions – a significant modern day lacuna in the rule of law. If we have no accountability now, it begs the question of what the far right might do with these tools.

It is right that we celebrate these wins, yet it is pertinent, all the more so given the rise of authoritarianism, that none of us – the Government included, rest on our laurels.

Global context

In the global and political context we find ourselves in, there remains much to be done.

Today, with an eye to some of those threats on the horizon, we will be focused on how we can strengthen constitutional resilience during such times of global political and economic instability. I’d like to thank our chairs, speakers and panelists for each of today’s sessions and for the insights they will share.

Let’s see if, together, we can pool our expertise, energy and also enthusiasm to improve our assessment and confidence in the state of the Rule of Law.”

The post Our Annual Conference: Strengthening the Constitution 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. 

• News & Updates
• Resource
• Uncategorized

The post Welcome to Interim CEO, Jamie Peters  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. 

The post Public Law Project welcomes Jamie Peters as Interim CEO  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.