× Search rightsnet
Search options

Where

Benefit

Jurisdiction

Jurisdiction

From

to

Forum Home  →  Discussion  →  Decision making and appeals  →  Thread

Oral hearings to be scrapped?

 < 1 2

Ros White
forum member

Advice and Rights team, CPAG, London

Send message

Total Posts: 81

Joined: 18 January 2016

Oh dear - not good news about the changes to the consultation - back to the drawing board for us…

Also think it’s worth noting that, under spending review of 2015, MoJ required to halve its administrative budget by 2019/2020 - see p 2 of NAO Departmental Overview -

https://www.nao.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2016/10/Departmental-Overview-2015-6-Ministry-of-Justice.pdf

Ros White
forum member

Advice and Rights team, CPAG, London

Send message

Total Posts: 81

Joined: 18 January 2016

Hi all - just thought I’d let you know that I emailed the MoJ to check if we could submit our original consultation response, which covers the relevant areas of both the new consultations, and they have said yes, it would be taken into account.

cheers Ros

Paul_Treloar_AgeUK
forum member

Information and advice resources - Age UK

Send message

Total Posts: 3196

Joined: 7 January 2016

thanks ros, we’re just signing off our own and can share soon too.

Ros White
forum member

Advice and Rights team, CPAG, London

Send message

Total Posts: 81

Joined: 18 January 2016

Hi all - here’s a link to our MoJ consultation response -

http://www.cpag.org.uk/content/ministry-justice-consultation-transforming-courts-and-tribunals

best Ros

[ Edited: 8 Nov 2016 at 05:09 pm by Ros White ]
SocSec
forum member

welfare benefits/citizens advice//ashfield

Send message

Total Posts: 277

Joined: 11 July 2013

right to a fair hearing eh !!! NOW THEY DON’T HAVE THE HUMAN RIGHTS ACT TPO WORRY ABOUT ANY MORE THE GOVT NO DOUBT THINK THEY CAN GET WAY WITH ANYTHING.

{ I wonder how many of those who voted for Brexit will be appealing welfare benefit decisions ] !!!

ClairemHodgson
forum member

Solicitor, SC Law, Harrow

Send message

Total Posts: 1221

Joined: 13 April 2016

SocSec - 10 November 2016 12:31 PM

NOW THEY DON’T HAVE THE HUMAN RIGHTS ACT TPO WORRY ABOUT ANY MORE THE GOVT NO DOUBT THINK THEY CAN GET WAY WITH ANYTHING.

The HRA hasn’t been repealed. Brexit doesn’t affect the HRA.

the HRA incorporates the European Convention on HR into UK law.  It is nothign to do wtih the EU.  even when Brexit happens, we will STILL be signatories to the Convention.  even if the HR ACt is repealed, we would still be signatories to the convention (but people would have to go back to trooping off to the ECHR for their declarations, rather than them being dealt with by our courts.  HRA was introduced, inter alia, so that UK courts could deal

and i would also point out that I anticipate that this suggestion (of doing away with oral hearings) arises out of the GENERAL proposals affecting ALL Courts to take as much online and paper only as possible

Interestingly, Lord Justice Briggs (who is the lead on that subject) thought that PI claims shouldn’t be in online court because not appropriate.  The same arguments can be made re tribunals, especially benefits tribunals.  For the same reasons.

Paul_Treloar_AgeUK
forum member

Information and advice resources - Age UK

Send message

Total Posts: 3196

Joined: 7 January 2016

Interesting, if not slightly concerning, paper from The UK Administrative Justice Institute on oral and paper hearings and what the proposed move to Online Dispute Resolution might mean in practice.

Oral and paper tribunal appeals, and the online future

I do find the analysis slightly too eager to flag up why the increased success rates at oral hearing for social security appeals as being unreliable to some extent, whilst also being similarly keen to demonstrate why paper hearings and/or digital would be better for many appellants.

To take two selections, regards the 48% oral hearing against 15% paper hearing differential for social security appeals, it notes:

First, the above data are not necessarily conclusive. It has not been conclusively demonstrated that the tribunal procedure itself necessarily leads to better outcomes. Nor is it possible to know the degree to which procedure affects outcome. It is also likely that there will be other variables at play here. It could be that appellants with a good chance of success are more likely to attend their appeal hearing.

before going onto state:

The second point is that paper appeals do have their benefits. They are quicker and cheaper. Some appellants might think that an oral hearing would be both intimidating and stressful. Some people may not know the difference between going to a tribunal and being put on trial before a court. Giving people the choice allows them to select their preferred option. On the other hand, there are some downsides to oral hearings, as noted above.

On the first point, on what basis exactly does any particular appellant, especially an unrepresented one, know that they have a good chance of success? Seems a very odd point of view to take in my opinion.

On the second point, it is true that appellants often request paper hearings due to fear but doesn’t necessarily lead to the conclusion that it’s the better option for them. Once they speak to an adviser and both properly understand the merits, or otherwise, of their particular appeal, and once they have the oral hearing procedure properly explained to them, many appellants will then decide they do want an oral heating.

Arguing for restrictions on access to justice based on ignorance and cost savings isn’t a good road to be looking to go down, especially in the current harsh world of welfare reform, sanctions and increasing conditionality.

[ Edited: 31 Jan 2017 at 02:29 pm by Paul_Treloar_AgeUK ]
Mike Hughes
forum member

Senior welfare rights officer - Salford City Council Welfare Rights Service

Send message

Total Posts: 3138

Joined: 17 June 2010

We have clients who regularly opt for a paper hearing because the correspondence from Dale Street in Liverpool leads them to erroneously believe their appeal will take place there rather than in Greater Manchester.

Would be interested to know if anyone has ever had a client with the capacity to attend who selected the paper hearing option once in full possession of the facts? I’ve had one or two I simply couldn’t persuade to an oral hearing but literally that in the past decade. My experience is very much that once in possession of the facts most appellants prefer an oral hearing. That’s not the same as subsequently enjoying the experience!

Jon (CANY)
forum member

Welfare benefits - Craven CAB, North Yorkshire

Send message

Total Posts: 1362

Joined: 16 June 2010

Paul_Treloar_AgeUK - 31 January 2017 10:24 AM

First, the above data are not necessarily conclusive. It has not been conclusively demonstrated that the tribunal procedure itself necessarily leads to better outcomes. Nor is it possible to know the degree to which procedure affects outcome. It is also likely that there will be other variables at play here. It could be that appellants with a good chance of success are more likely to attend their appeal hearing.

I don’t know about “better” outcomes, but when actual research was done on this by presenting model cases to a panel, it was found that identical facts lead to different outcomes depending on whether the case was presented orally, or on paper:

http://www.rightsnet.org.uk/?ACT=39&fid=9&aid=1004_VPO6cI7LN7Xtv92xI3Kz&board_id=1

I think the above paper goes some way to refuting arguments made along the lines of: “only appellants with strong cases bother to turn up, so that’s why attending a hearing correlates with winning the appeal”.

shawn mach
Administrator

rightsnet.org.uk

Send message

Total Posts: 3773

Joined: 14 April 2010

Further to our news story in Sept 2016, the Senior President of Tribunals has confirmed that the first jurisdictions to adopt the online court will be the social security and child support tribunal ...

http://www.legalfutures.co.uk/latest-news/online-court-visible-by-september-and-no-big-bang-top-judge-reveals