Justice & Tribunals
Yesterday evening I went to a talk at the AGM of Norwich CAB by Mr Rosser who chairs Norfolk Tribunals of some sort. He was talking about appeals about benefits. He commented that when he first got involved many of those involved were no even lawyers, as if that is a bad thing. But now there were lots of lawyers so it seems justice goes out of the window.
For example he wants a duty roster of people to represent those who come before the tribunal to help them. He actually said that there were people who wopuld win their cases if they had been represented. If one thinks about this statement carefully it shows that the tribunal is not interested in justice or doing its job properly. How could the tribunal find against someone and yet say that they would have won if represented. It means that the members of the tribunal had realised from the evidence that the claimant had a justified case BUT found against them. I do not ubderstand how this can happen. Surely if the tribunal is interested in the truth and justice they must have found for the claimant.
Perhaps someone can explain.
For example he wants a duty roster of people to represent those who come before the tribunal to help them. He actually said that there were people who wopuld win their cases if they had been represented. If one thinks about this statement carefully it shows that the tribunal is not interested in justice or doing its job properly. How could the tribunal find against someone and yet say that they would have won if represented. It means that the members of the tribunal had realised from the evidence that the claimant had a justified case BUT found against them. I do not ubderstand how this can happen. Surely if the tribunal is interested in the truth and justice they must have found for the claimant.
Perhaps someone can explain.
Labels: justice
posted by Unknown at
9:16 AM
1 Comments:
Thank you for highlighting this point. I was recently diagnosed as having Aspergers Syndrome, after repeatedly trying to hold down work in open-plan offices, but experiencing the extent of these lifelong social difficulties in that environment due to my odd manner, and having to depend on Incapacity Benefit between contracts.
My Incapacity Benefit was then stopped, bringing me currently to the brink of homelessness four months after diagnosis, thanks to a 'personal capability assessment' that pays no attention to such difficulties in the work environment.
I am awaiting a tribunal for my appeal at present, and have so far found nobody to represent me. A National Autistic Society Welfare Rights Adviser told me that the tribunal makes some allowance if one doesn't have representation. Mr Rosser's words would seem to suggest that some is not always enough and that the tribunal system itself is not immune to the injustice that is so prevalent in the current benefits 'solution'.
I wish I had a better explanation in light of my impending self-representation, with a social and communicative disability, but too high-functioning to be readily regarded as disabled, and too odd to fit their assessment criteria.
By
Gary Morris, at 9:43 AM
Post a Comment
<< Home