× Search rightsnet
Search options

Where

Benefit

Jurisdiction

Jurisdiction

From

to

Forum Home  →  Discussion  →  Housing costs  →  Thread

UC Reg 19 and IPP prisoners - caselaw and hive mind help

past caring
forum member

Welfare Rights Adviser - Southwark Law Centre, Peckham

Send message

Total Posts: 1116

Joined: 25 February 2014

Currently trying to get my head around whether there may be any mileage in a case for an IPP prisoner recalled to prison in March 2020 and released February 2021.

For those unfamiliar, IPP stands for Imprisonment for Public Protection, was introduced in 2005 and abolished in 2012. After serving whatever the minimum tariff was, an IPP prisoner could try to convince the parole board they had reformed and were unlikely to re-offend and, if successful, would be released but (for life) subject to recall. Though abolished in 2012, those already serving IPP sentences continue to serve them and are still subject to that regime.

The first obstacle is whether, given the above, I can get past reg. 19 (2)(b) - “the person has not been sentenced to a term in custody that is not expected to extend beyond that 6 months.”

That is, leaving aside the issue of whether on the specific facts of the case the recall period could be said to be one not expected to extend beyond 6 months, whether we are stuffed because the actual ‘sentence’ (i.e. the original minimum tariff) was certainly much longer than 6 months…..

I think there may be potentially useful case law in;
Neville Waite v (1) London Borough of Hammersmith & Fulham (2) Secretary of State for Social Security [2001] EWHC 672 (Admin)

which then went to the Court of Appeal in;
Waite v London Borough of Hammersmith and Fulham & Anr [2002] EWCA Civ 482

but I cannot find these on Westlaw or Bailii - only partial references to them elsewhere. Interested to find out exactly what arguments were made in those cases (which lost) and wondering whether there may be any wriggle room as the CA case appears to have failed in part because the Court rejected the argument for the appellant that he was in an analogous situation to a remand prisoner – the Court pointing out that the appellant who had been recalled had been convicted of murder whilst the remand prisoner had not been convicted of anything. But in the UC Regs, there’s now no distinction between ‘actual’ prisoners and those on remand, both are ‘prisoners’ for the purposes of UC.

Over to you lot…..

 

Elliot Kent
forum member

Shelter

Send message

Total Posts: 3117

Joined: 14 July 2014

My reading of reg 19(2) is that a person who has had their licence revoked and has been recalled to prison will be able to take advantage of it unless it is expected that their recall period will exceed six months. This happens to align with the approach under HB - i.e. that your recall to prison after a period on licence was a fresh absence and provided it was not likely to exceed 13 weeks, you would retain an entitlement.

Reg 19(2) says:

(2) Paragraph (1)(b) does not apply during the first 6 months when the person is a prisoner where—
(a)the person was entitled to universal credit as a single person immediately before becoming a prisoner, and the calculation of their award included an amount for the housing costs element; and
(b)the person has not been sentenced to a term in custody that is expected to extend beyond that 6 months.

I have put the bits I think are important in bold. The point is that the regs are referring to a specific six month period which begins when you become a prisoner and reg 19(2)(b) only bites if that specific period is likely to be exceeded. I think that when your client was recalled to prison in March 2020, that began a new period of being a prisoner for the purposes of reg 19 and it cannot be said that your client’s original sentence contemplated he would be in custody for this new six month period following the licence and recall.

My limited understanding though is that when you are recalled, there is an initial hearing before the parole board after a month or so. If they confirm the recall, then it is usually a year before you can re-apply. I think that (if that is right), then it would seem likely that at some point the parole board confirmed the recall with the result that your client was at that point expected to spend a further period in custody which was going to exceed “that” six month period.

HB Anorak
forum member

Benefits consultant/trainer - hbanorak.co.uk, East London

Send message

Total Posts: 2895

Joined: 12 March 2013

I agree with Elliot and this ties in with the definition of “prisoner” in Reg 2 which refers to being detained in custody or on temporary release (not the same thing as released on licence btw).  It follows that you only “become” a prisoner for the purpose of Reg 19 when you are detained.

past caring
forum member

Welfare Rights Adviser - Southwark Law Centre, Peckham

Send message

Total Posts: 1116

Joined: 25 February 2014

OK, that makes sense - I’d no idea about the mechanics of recall - i.e. that there would be a parole board hearing relatively shortly after recall where the decision on recall would be confirmed (or otherwise) and the period of recall confirmed. This is stuff that those making the referral (i.e. the probation service) ought really to have volunteered, especially given I’d made it clear I’d need the info, but like I say - blood from a stone.

ETA - and I’ve located the two cases referred to now.