Allowing DWP barristers to sit as benefits appeal judges ‘is unquestionably wrong’
The Department for Work and Pensions office in London.
A system that allows barristers who are paid by DWP to prosecute benefit fraud cases to also sit as judges on tribunals that decide social security appeals is “unquestionably wrong” and a “direct conflict of interest”, say welfare rights experts.
Once a judge is appointed to a full-time, salaried post they are no longer allowed to carry out paid work as barristers.
Neither DWP nor the Judicial Office, which supports the judiciary, expressed any concerns this week about part-time judges on social security appeal tribunals also prosecuting cases on behalf of DWP.
But Steve Donnison, co-founder of Benefits and Work, which provides benefits information and advice, said: “It is unquestionably wrong that judges can be allowed to sit in jurisdictions where they have a financial relationship with one of the parties to appeals.
“It undermines people’s trust in the independence of the judiciary.”
Source: Allowing DWP barristers to sit as benefits appeal judges ‘is unquestionably wrong’
Join the Vox Political Facebook page.
If you have appreciated this article, don’t forget to share it using the buttons at the bottom of this page. Politics is about everybody – so let’s try to get everybody involved!
Vox Political needs your help!
If you want to support this site
(but don’t want to give your money to advertisers)
you can make a one-off donation here:
Buy Vox Political books so we can continue
fighting for the facts.
The Livingstone Presumption is now available
in either print or eBook format here:
Health Warning: Government! is now available
in either print or eBook format here:
The first collection, Strong Words and Hard Times,
is still available in either print or eBook format here:
In my day it was a case of the “funny handshake”. Nowadays it’s a blatant “So what? What are you going to do about it?” That’s the British Establishment for you.
just more aktion t4 culling the stock
Total conflict of interest that would or should have been declared at the outset if the system were to mirror the real legal world ….. which in this case just mirrors this Governments corruption and attack on the downtrodden.
It’s another sneaky way from the government to stack the deck against the poor and sick.
This is called the “Baker Small Agenda” (ref Cambridge County Council et al )
I wonder how that will work in favour when they make a wrong decision at that level and it becomes a matter for the law society, especially if conflict of interest comes into play, Somehow I don’t think the DWP have thought about this at all