I think this may be a long shot but hey, life as a welf would be dull without them...

Potential client (I have not seen him yet) was claiming HB for a council property. He went to Iraq for a few weeks to visit his family but whilst over there got arrested for taking part in a demonstration (which he vehemently denies apparantly) and was summarily thrown into jail without charge or trial. A few months later he was released as part of some sort of amnesty without ever having been formally charged, tried or convicted of anything, and returned to the UK.

Because he was away for 6 months his HB claim was terminated and he is now facing eviction for rent arrears. Is there any possibility of arguing that he was a prisoner on remand and therefore entitled to a temporary absence of up to 52 weeks? I have had a look at the reg and it says nothing about the prison having to be in the UK. I suspect it may all fall flat on its face through lack of proof, but as a general principle is this arguable does anyone think?

I personally think the council should take a more lenient view of his rent arrears under the circumstances but I am not a housing / debt expert so if anyone has any thoughts on this aspect of it that would be useful too.

Thanks in advance all

I don't see any reason why the statutory phrase "detained in custody on remand pending trial" should be construed so narrowly to exclude prisoners detained in non-uk jurisdictions.

The policy intention is to enable people who are temporary absent from home not to become homeless as a result of rent arrears by having their entitlement to housing benefit removed. Therefore, if a person can bring himself into one of the provisions regarding temporary absence then he should benefit from the protection afforded.

It would, in my view be irrational to distinguish between prisoners based on the geographical location of the prison or the identity of the legal and judicial system responsible for it.

Someone might question whether the prisoner was actually “on remand” in circumstances such as these. The etymology of the word “remand” is to “send back” and in legal usage usually by a court. However, language develops and so do its usages. Remand has come to mean also, commitment to custody following the failure of a bail application or detention of a prisoner prior to trial. In my view, the term should be construed widely.

Following on from that, that the person was not actually charged or put on trial should not matter as the outcome does not necessarily negate the intention.

Thanks nevip, I'll give a go and see what happens, assuming the client wants to pursue it, watch this space!

client's detention was illegal and his human rights were abused by a foreign power. an outcome in which he loses his home as a result doesn't appear to be either compatible or in the spirit of human rights legislation. perhaps the landlord can be prevailed upon to withdraw the eviction threat so that the question of the rent arrears and available help and avenues for discretion can be carefully and sympathetically considered?

I am not a criminal lawyer, but I am not aware of anything which suggests that "remand " is a term of art. The OED defines remand as
verb place (a defendant) on bail or in custody, especially when a trial is adjourned.
• noun a committal to custody.

The point is that this person has not been convicted of any offence, but he was imprisoned by another jurisdiction, so I think you could argue that he has been remanded in custody.

As for corroboration, its been accpeted in a number of cases that corroboration may not be necessary (see for example R(I)2/51 R(SB)33/85, CH/4065/2001, CP/3037/3004)

On balance I don't think one can argue that he was remanded in custody when he was essentially being held without charge or trial in a foreign country.

Somewhere in the criminal procedure legislation, there will be a definition of "on remand pending trial" (possibly the Magistrates Court Act 1980) which will require that a prisoner is remanded in custody in accordance with a prescribed legal process.

I can also vaguely recall some rule of legal interpretation which requires interpretation to be based on English legal concepts.

If it was Iran (which it may be, rather than Iraq), they have been rounding people up after demonstrations and eventually releasing most of them without charge - it's part of the state's strategy of intimidation. Police and security officials there often ignore what legal safeguards exist (the Iranian constitution states there should be no detention without charge), so even under Iranian law it would not be the equivalent of a remand in custody.