High Court rules Work Capability Assessment arguably unlawful!

zippy1969

Someone mentioned this in one of my threads but never gave a link. I searched and found the story:

http://www.dpac.uk.net/2012/07/judicial-review-of-work-capability-assessment-granted-2/

I always thought it would be just a matter of time before someone challenged the legality of the WCA. Not sure when the case will be heard and a decision reached. If the case is upheld, surely this would also set a precedent for the PIP assessments that will begin in 2014. My friend receives DLA due to the effects her mental health issues have on her.

This story seems to have slipped 'under-the-radar' due to the Olympics dominating the news right now.

mynameistallulah

Your title is highly misleading - the claimants have been granted permission to go to JR, no one has ruled that the WCA is unlawful! The reason it has gone under the radar is that, to date, there is no news.

zippy1969

mynameistallulah wrote: »

Your title is highly misleading - the claimants have been granted permission to go to JR, no one has ruled that the WCA is unlawful! The reason it has gone under the radar is that, to date, there is no news.

I disagree. My title states the WCA is 'arguably unlawful'...a conclusion arrived at by the 'High Court'...the result of which is permission for a judicial review. Therefore, the 'High Court' has ruled that the WCA is 'arguably' unlawful. Nowhere have I said that the High Court HAS ruled that it IS unlawful???

"The High Court has today granted permission to two disabled people to bring a claim for judicial review against the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions to challenge the operation of the Work Capability Assessment (WCA)."

Of course it is news. A decision has been made for the challenge to go ahead.

mynameistallulah

zippy1969 wrote: »

I disagree. My title states 'arguably' misleading...a decision made by the 'High Court.'

"The High Court has today granted permission to two disabled people to bring a claim for judicial review against the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions to challenge the operation of the Work Capability Assessment (WCA)."

Of course it is news. A decision has been made for the challenge to go ahead.

So equally we could amend your title to "High Court rules Work Capability Assessment arguably lawful!", yes?

zippy1969

mynameistallulah wrote: »

So equally we could amend your title to "High Court rules Work Capability Assessment arguably lawful!", yes?

Yes. But for crying out loud...you must be seriously bored.

When, for instance, the CPS decide there is evidence to take someone to trial for murder...the story is never covered as 'Joe Bloggs to be tried for not murdering John Doe.'

I've put this thread on here as it will be an interesting read for many and will give hope to some.

Show some common sense.

mynameistallulah

zippy1969 wrote: »

Yes. But when, for instance, the CPS decide there is evidence to take someone to trial for murder...the story is never covered as 'Joe Bloggs to be tried for not murdering John Doe.'

I've put this thread on here as it will be an interesting read for many and will give hope to some.

When someone is tried in a criminal court the question of guilt is not addressed until all the evidence has been heard - I have never seen a headline suggested that a defendant is "arguably guilty", have you?

I am guessing that you misunderstand the Judicial Review process. All that has happened to date is that the court has decided there is a point of law that is ambiguous and needs clarification. It will be an interesting case when it is heard, but at present there really is nothing to get excited about.

zippy1969

mynameistallulah wrote: »

All that has happened to date is that the court has decided there is a point of law that is ambiguous and needs clarification.

Yes, I agree...a convoluted way of saying "High Court rules Work Capability Assessment arguably unlawful." The title would need to contain the word 'lawful' only if those bringing the case were challenging that it were lawful.

My initial post specifically states "not sure when the case will be heard or a decision reached?"

It's similar to the case that was brought regarding bank charges. The fact that a judicial review was granted in the first instance was news in itself.

Anyway, some thoughts on the actual contents of the story would be welcome.

System

zippy1969 wrote: »

Someone mentioned this in one of my threads but never gave a link. I searched and found the story:

http://www.dpac.uk.net/2012/07/judicial-review-of-work-capability-assessment-granted-2/

I always thought it would be just a matter of time before someone challenged the legality of the WCA. Not sure when the case will be heard and a decision reached. If the case is upheld, surely this would also set a precedent for the PIP assessments that will begin in 2014. My friend receives DLA due to the effects her mental health issues have on her.

This story seems to have slipped 'under-the-radar' due to the Olympics dominating the news right now.

There is no challenge to the legality. The challenge is whether 'reasonable adjustment*' for those suffering from mental health problems should be applied.

The basic WCA is not being challenged.

In granting permission to apply for judicial review, the judge stated:


“I consider that it is reasonably arguable that the reasonable adjustments required by the [Equality Act 2010] include the early obtaining of independent medical evidence where the documents submitted with the claim show that the claimant suffers from mental health problems and that this has not been done, or at least not done on a sufficiently widespread basis”.

*'Reasonable adjustment' as required under the Equality Act 2010.

marybelle01

mynameistallulah wrote: »

When someone is tried in a criminal court the question of guilt is not addressed until all the evidence has been heard - I have never seen a headline suggested that a defendant is "arguably guilty", have you?

I am guessing that you misunderstand the Judicial Review process. All that has happened to date is that the court has decided there is a point of law that is ambiguous and needs clarification. It will be an interesting case when it is heard, but at present there really is nothing to get excited about.

I hate to do this because I actually agree with you. But in a criminal trial the question of guilt is addressed long before the trial. All defendants are innocent until proven guilty. A judicial review is very different - apples and pears.

But oddly, despite long running threads about the illegality of the work programme, nobody appears to have mentioned todays ruling that it's legal.