Abstract
In this chapter, an attempt is made to assess the compatibility of the current sanctions regime with the ‘rule of law’. Using Tom Bingham’s eight ‘rule of law’ principles as a template, the number of counts on which the current sanctions regime in the UK appears not to satisfy these principles indicates that there are serious questions about its conformity with the rule of law, in addition to the serious questions about its effectiveness, humanity and injustice. Another characterisation of the rule of law would, no doubt, produce different conclusions but, on the evidence presented in this chapter, it is clear that there is something very wrong with the current sanctions regime.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
- 2.
- 3.
Bingham (2010).
- 4.
The number of JSA appeals increased from 6330 in 2009 to 34,022 in 2013. This represents a 540% increase over five years.
- 5.
DWP decision-makers now use Advice for Decision Makers (ADM), instead of the DMG for decisions that involve Universal Credit, Personal Independence Payment, contribution-based Jobseeker’s Allowance (JSA) and contribution-based Employment and Support Allowance (ESA).
- 6.
In para 34204 of Chapter 34, the DMG points out that the concepts of ‘good cause’ and ‘just cause’ have been considered in case law, which makes it clear that they include facts that would probably have caused a reasonable person to act as the claimant did (reference is made to case 1 R(SB) 6/83). However, ‘good reason’ has not been considered in case law and it has been suggested that the 2012 Regulations deliberately replaced ‘good cause’ with ‘good reason’ to ensure that existing case law on ‘good cause’ did not automatically apply. Para 34205 points out that claimants will be given the opportunity to explain why they have not complied with requirements and that it is their responsibility to show ‘good reason’ for the failure and provide information and evidence as appropriate to explain why they have not complied.
- 7.
According to the Public Accounts Committee, some Work Programme providers make more than twice as many sanction referrals as other providers who support similar people in the same area, and that, between Job Centres, sanction rates also vary in ways that cannot be explained. See House of Commons Public Accounts Committee (2017: para 9).
- 8.
See Chapter 6 above.
- 9.
National Audit Office (2016: para 10).
- 10.
Butler (2015).
- 11.
Adler (2009).
- 12.
European Social Charter, European Committee of Social Rights 2013 (2014) Conclusions XX–2, United Kingdom—Article 13, 29 January. For a commentary, see Cashman (2014).
References
Adler, M. (2009, March). Tribunals Ain’t What They Used to Be. Adjust Newsletter. Available at http://www.ajtc.gov.uk/adjust/09_03.htm.
Bingham, T. (2010). The Rule of Law. London: Allen Lane.
Butler, P. (2015, March 24). Benefit Sanctions: The 10 Trivial Breaches and Administrative Errors. The Guardian. Available at https://www.theguardian.com/society/2015/mar/24/benefit-sanctions-trivial-breaches-and-administrative-errors.
Cashman, D. (2014). Not Reaping the Benefits: The United Kingdom’s Continuing Violation of Article 12(1) of the European Social Charter. Oxford Human Rights Law Blog. Available at http://ohrh.law.ox.ac.uk/not-reaping-the-benefits-the-united-kingdoms-continuing-violation-of-article-12%C2%A71-of-the-european-social-charter/.
Dicey, A. V. (1885/1979). Introduction to the Study of the Law of the Constitution. London: Palgrave Macmillan.
Hart, H. L. A. (1961/1972). The Concept of Law. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Hayek, F. A. (1944). The Road to Serfdom. London: Routledge.
House of Commons Public Accounts Committee. (2017, February 21). Benefit Sanctions, HC 775, 42nd Report of Session 2016–2017. Available at https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201617/cmselect/cmpubacc/775/775.pdf.
Locke, J. (1689/1988). Two Treatises of Government. Cambridge Texts in the History of Political Thought. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
MacCormick, N. (2005). Rhetoric and the Rule of Law: A Theory of Legal Reasoning. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
National Audit Office. (2016, November 17). Benefit Sanctions: Detailed Methodology. London: National Audit Office. Available at https://www.nao.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2016/11/Benefit-sanctions-detailed-methodology.pdf.
Raz, J. (1979). The Rule of Law and Its Virtues. In The Authority of Law: Essays on Law and Morality. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Waldron, J. (2005). Is the Rule of Law an Essentially Contested Concept? In R. Bellamy (Ed.), The Rule of Law and the Separation of Powers. Farnham: Ashgate.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2018 The Author(s)
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Adler, M. (2018). Benefit Sanctions and the Rule of Law. In: Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment?. Palgrave Socio-Legal Studies. Palgrave Pivot, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-90356-9_10
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-90356-9_10
Published:
Publisher Name: Palgrave Pivot, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-319-90355-2
Online ISBN: 978-3-319-90356-9
eBook Packages: Law and CriminologyLaw and Criminology (R0)