This article is from the source 'guardian' and was first published or seen on . It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.
You can find the current article at its original source at https://www.theguardian.com/money/2017/jul/31/workers-who-lost-tribunal-rights-should-have-the-chance-to-pursue-their-claims
The article has changed 5 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.
| Version 1 | Version 2 |
|---|---|
| Workers who lost tribunal rights should have the chance to pursue their claims | Workers who lost tribunal rights should have the chance to pursue their claims |
| (8 days later) | |
| You report that following last week’s supreme court decision the Ministry of Justice will refund employment tribunal fees charged since 2013 (Employment tribunal fees scrapped after supreme court rules them unjust, 27 July). So it should; but it should go further. The court concluded that “a significant number of people who would otherwise have brought claims have found the fees to be unaffordable” (para 91): the fees were “unlawful ab initio” because they have “the effect of preventing access to justice” (para 119). | You report that following last week’s supreme court decision the Ministry of Justice will refund employment tribunal fees charged since 2013 (Employment tribunal fees scrapped after supreme court rules them unjust, 27 July). So it should; but it should go further. The court concluded that “a significant number of people who would otherwise have brought claims have found the fees to be unaffordable” (para 91): the fees were “unlawful ab initio” because they have “the effect of preventing access to justice” (para 119). |
| While those who paid the fees were indeed overcharged, it is those who could not pay who were denied justice. I think of a colleague declared “redundant” (or, as she and many others thought, unfairly dismissed) 18 months ago. Faced with the fees, she dropped her case. What the supreme court has decided – in what you rightly call “a triumphant defence of the rule of law” – is that she and many thousands like her were illegally denied access to justice. It is they, above all, who need redress. The government should compensate them, set aside time limits and enable them to pursue their claims. | While those who paid the fees were indeed overcharged, it is those who could not pay who were denied justice. I think of a colleague declared “redundant” (or, as she and many others thought, unfairly dismissed) 18 months ago. Faced with the fees, she dropped her case. What the supreme court has decided – in what you rightly call “a triumphant defence of the rule of law” – is that she and many thousands like her were illegally denied access to justice. It is they, above all, who need redress. The government should compensate them, set aside time limits and enable them to pursue their claims. |
| You say the supreme court’s reprimand to Chris Grayling was “brutal” (Editorial, 27 July). I note he retains his cabinet minister’s job, salary and prospects. My colleague, in contrast, lost her job, her salary and her prospects. In that light, the reprimand seems positively benign.Professor John HolfordRobert Peers professor of adult education, University of Nottingham | You say the supreme court’s reprimand to Chris Grayling was “brutal” (Editorial, 27 July). I note he retains his cabinet minister’s job, salary and prospects. My colleague, in contrast, lost her job, her salary and her prospects. In that light, the reprimand seems positively benign.Professor John HolfordRobert Peers professor of adult education, University of Nottingham |
| • The decision of the supreme court that the introduction of fees for employment tribunals was unlawful is majestically argued in terms of access to justice. It is in stark contrast to the miserable and myopic decision of the court of appeal, which resorted to the logic of the poor law in holding that the reason for the dramatic drop in employment tribunal applications was because claimants, being the undeserving poor, chose to spend their money on non-essential items, such as clothes and alcohol. | • The decision of the supreme court that the introduction of fees for employment tribunals was unlawful is majestically argued in terms of access to justice. It is in stark contrast to the miserable and myopic decision of the court of appeal, which resorted to the logic of the poor law in holding that the reason for the dramatic drop in employment tribunal applications was because claimants, being the undeserving poor, chose to spend their money on non-essential items, such as clothes and alcohol. |
| I spent over a decade as a volunteer lawyer for a charity representing claimants at employment tribunals. Even before fees were introduced, the odds were stacked against claimants. There was no legal aid and the burden of proving discrimination, whistleblowing or unfair dismissal meant that only around 20% of cases were won by claimants. | I spent over a decade as a volunteer lawyer for a charity representing claimants at employment tribunals. Even before fees were introduced, the odds were stacked against claimants. There was no legal aid and the burden of proving discrimination, whistleblowing or unfair dismissal meant that only around 20% of cases were won by claimants. |
| Employment tribunals were meant to ensure that ordinary workers could obtain redress without paying lawyers. Fees which were higher than those in the high court were introduced for the sole reason of deterring applicants. Contrary to your editorial, it wasn’t Chris Grayling so much as the Liberal Democrat ministers – Vince Cable, Jo Swinson and Ed Davey – who were responsible for their introduction. The Lib Dems could have stopped the introduction of employment tribunal fees but, as with the bedroom tax, benefit cuts and the NHS privatisation, they deferred to the Tories.Tony GreensteinBrighton | Employment tribunals were meant to ensure that ordinary workers could obtain redress without paying lawyers. Fees which were higher than those in the high court were introduced for the sole reason of deterring applicants. Contrary to your editorial, it wasn’t Chris Grayling so much as the Liberal Democrat ministers – Vince Cable, Jo Swinson and Ed Davey – who were responsible for their introduction. The Lib Dems could have stopped the introduction of employment tribunal fees but, as with the bedroom tax, benefit cuts and the NHS privatisation, they deferred to the Tories.Tony GreensteinBrighton |
| • Afua Hirsch (Ministers have had a lesson in patriotism from the judges, 27 July) is entirely right in recognising the supreme court’s decision on employment tribunal fees as “strong and principled”. She is right also to call for this to be extended to immigration tribunal fees. And the restrictions on civil legal aid have, as we have seen, had a devastating impact in family courts, helping push up eviction rates. | • Afua Hirsch (Ministers have had a lesson in patriotism from the judges, 27 July) is entirely right in recognising the supreme court’s decision on employment tribunal fees as “strong and principled”. She is right also to call for this to be extended to immigration tribunal fees. And the restrictions on civil legal aid have, as we have seen, had a devastating impact in family courts, helping push up eviction rates. |
| There is, though, one aspect of all this that gets consistently overlooked. Under the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012, in criminal cases, a capital contribution order may be made where the director of legal aid casework determines that an individual should contribute towards the cost of their legal aid. There is no scope to waive such an order. Inevitably, this means that, in addition to being chased for often massively overvalued “criminal assets”, prisoners and ex-offenders will be hounded by collection agencies and be placed at risk of losing their homes. There is now in place a de facto system of double punishment. Anyone convicted of an offence that involves the alleged acquisition of profit in some way will be both sent to jail and then have every piece of their life dismantled. | There is, though, one aspect of all this that gets consistently overlooked. Under the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012, in criminal cases, a capital contribution order may be made where the director of legal aid casework determines that an individual should contribute towards the cost of their legal aid. There is no scope to waive such an order. Inevitably, this means that, in addition to being chased for often massively overvalued “criminal assets”, prisoners and ex-offenders will be hounded by collection agencies and be placed at risk of losing their homes. There is now in place a de facto system of double punishment. Anyone convicted of an offence that involves the alleged acquisition of profit in some way will be both sent to jail and then have every piece of their life dismantled. |
| Under such circumstances, access to justice is a myth. If you have an income and apply for legal aid to properly fund your defence, you will likely be hit by a capital contribution order if you lose. Choose to self-fund and you’ll either risk bankruptcy, or go for the cheapest option. So much for equality of arms and so much for the right to a fair trial. That “stern lecture on the basics of English law and the UK constitution” needs to take into account the restrictions on access to justice in the criminal courts, or it will betray the principles it claims to preserve.Nick MossLondon | Under such circumstances, access to justice is a myth. If you have an income and apply for legal aid to properly fund your defence, you will likely be hit by a capital contribution order if you lose. Choose to self-fund and you’ll either risk bankruptcy, or go for the cheapest option. So much for equality of arms and so much for the right to a fair trial. That “stern lecture on the basics of English law and the UK constitution” needs to take into account the restrictions on access to justice in the criminal courts, or it will betray the principles it claims to preserve.Nick MossLondon |
| • Congratulations to the trade union Unison on its major achievement of securing the reversal in the law on employment tribunal fees. The best news for working people for many, years. It has enormous ramifications.Frank BurchillLichfield, Staffordshire | • Congratulations to the trade union Unison on its major achievement of securing the reversal in the law on employment tribunal fees. The best news for working people for many, years. It has enormous ramifications.Frank BurchillLichfield, Staffordshire |
| • Join the debate – email guardian.letters@theguardian.com | • Join the debate – email guardian.letters@theguardian.com |
| • Read more Guardian letters – click here to visit gu.com/letters | • Read more Guardian letters – click here to visit gu.com/letters |