JC v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions
| Jurisdiction | UK Non-devolved |
| Neutral Citation | [2024] UKUT 13 (AAC) |
| Year | 2024 |
| Court | Upper Tribunal (Administrative Appeals Chamber) |
2024 Jan 8
Social security - Welfare benefits - Employment and support allowance - Claimant detained in custody pending and following sentence for civil contempt of court - Whether claimant “prisoner” so as to lose entitlement to allowance -
Having breached an injunction, the claimant was arrested pursuant to a civil warrant issued by the County Court, found guilty in the same court of civil contempt, detained in prison pending sentence and finally sentenced in the same court to a term of imprisonment. The Secretary of State decided to end the claimant’s entitlement to employment and support allowance with effect from the date on which he had been detained in prison pending sentence, on the basis that from that point he had been a “prisoner” for the purposes of the Employment and Support Allowance Regulations 2008, defined in regulation 69(2) thereof as a person who was “detained in custody pending trial or sentence on conviction or under a sentence imposed by a court”. The First-tier Tribunal dismissed the claimant’s appeal against that decision.
On the claimant’s further appeal—
Held, allowing the appeal, that, on a true construction, a “prisoner” as defined in regulation 69(2) of the Employment and Support Allowance Regulations 2008 was a person who was detained in custody pending trial, conviction or sentence in a criminal court or detained in custody under a sentence imposed by a criminal court; that, therefore, a person who was detained in custody pending trial or sentence for civil contempt in a civil court or under a sentence imposed by a civil court for civil contempt was not a “prisoner” within regulation 69(2) of the 2008 Regulations; that, in particular, regulation 69(2) should be construed consistently with the restrictive interpretation that had been given to section 113(1)(b) of the Social Security Contribution and Benefits Act 1992, which concerned a person “undergoing imprisonment or detention in legal custody”; that, moreover, there were public policy reasons for distinguishing imprisonment imposed by the criminal courts from imprisonment imposed by the civil courts when assessing entitlement to benefits; that it followed that the claimant in the present case had not at any time been a “prisoner” within the meaning of regulation 69(2); and that, accordingly, the Secretary of State’s decision to end his entitlement to employment and support allowance would be set aside and remade in the claimant’s favour (post, paras 12, 25–27, 29–39, 41).
The following case is referred to in the judgment:
R(S) 8/79 19 January 1979,
No additional cases were referred to in the skeleton arguments.
APPEAL from the First-tier Tribunal (Social Entitlement Chamber)
By a decision notice dated 18 August 2022 the First-tier Tribunal (Social Entitlement Chamber) dismissed an appeal by the claimant, JC, against a decision of the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, dated 10 September 2020, ending the claimant’s entitlement to income-related employment and support allowance pursuant to the Employment and Support Allowance Regulations 2008.
With permission granted by Upper Tribunal Judge Rupert Jones the claimant appealed to the Upper Tribunal on the ground that the First-tier Tribunal had erred in law in using the wrong legislation to establish the meaning of “prisoner” in relation to his entitlement to the allowance and/or that it had erred in overlooking relevant case law.
The facts are stated in the judgment, post, paras 2–8.
Glenn Brooks, legal executive (of
Lauren Foody (of
8 January 2024. UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE RUPERT JONES gave the following judgment.
Reasons for decision1 The appellant appeals the decision of the First-tier Tribunal (“the FTT”) dated 18 August 2022. By that decision the FTT dismissed an appeal against the decision of the Secretary of State (“the respondent”) dated 10 September 2020.
Background2 On 23 December 2019 the respondent decided that the appellant was entitled to income-related employment and support allowance (“ESA(IR)”) from 20 November 2019. The appellant had previously been in custody from 10 October 2019 until 18 November 2019 but the respondent accepted he met the criteria for ESA(IR) when he reclaimed on 20 November 2019.
3 On 3 September 2020 the appellant was arrested on a civil warrant issued in the County Court at Walsall on 8 August 2020 and found guilty of contempt of court in relation to an injunction issued by that court in March 2019.
4 Thereafter, the appellant was admitted to HMP Birmingham on 4 September 2020 until 14 October 2020 pending sentence and from 14...
Get this document and AI-powered insights with a free trial of vLex and Vincent AI
Get Started for FreeStart Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting