AM v The Secretary of State

Factual and Procedural Background

This appeal concerns a claimant who was awarded the lower rate of the mobility component and the highest rate of the care component of Disability Living Allowance (DLA) from 12 March 2004 to 11 March 2007. In 2006, during this award period, the claimant married her appointee. A renewal claim submitted in late 2006, through the appointee, was successful, extending the same rates of benefit for a further five years until 11 March 2012.

On 12 June 2010, following an investigation, the award was superseded with effect from 12 July 2008, determining that the claimant no longer satisfied the conditions for either component from that date. It was concluded that the claimant’s mobility and care needs had diminished or ceased, resulting in an overpayment of £7,403.50, which was recoverable from the appointee.

Both the claimant and the appointee appealed the decision. Prior to the appeal hearing, the appointee was charged under section 112(1D) of the Social Security Administration Act 1992 for failing to notify the Secretary of State of a change in circumstances affecting the claimant’s entitlement to DLA, specifically that her capabilities had improved between 16 July 2008 and 25 May 2010. The precise extent of the improvement and its impact on entitlement were not detailed in the charge.

There was ambiguity as to whether the appointee pleaded guilty or not guilty at trial, but he was ultimately convicted and received a 12-month conditional discharge.

The tribunal rejected the appeal, identifying only the appointee as a party, though it acknowledged that he was appealing on behalf of the claimant. The tribunal held that absent fresh evidence undermining the conviction, the appointee’s conviction barred the appeal.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether the appointee’s criminal conviction constitutes a conclusive bar to the appeals against the supersession and overpayment decisions.
2. To what extent can a tribunal in social security appeals rely on or challenge a criminal conviction when determining benefit entitlement.
3. Whether the claimant, who was not a party to the criminal proceedings, is bound by the appointee’s conviction in relation to her benefit entitlement.
4. The scope of public policy limitations on challenging a criminal conviction in civil or inquisitorial social security proceedings.
5. The proper approach to the burden of proof and evidential weight of criminal convictions in social security tribunals where strict rules of evidence do not apply.

Arguments of the Parties

The opinion does not contain a detailed account of the parties' legal arguments.

Table of Precedents Cited

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court began by noting the procedural history, including the appellant’s criminal conviction related to failure to notify a change in circumstances affecting benefit entitlement. It clarified that the claimant, who was not a party to the criminal proceedings, is not bound by the appointee’s conviction and that the tribunal must independently determine her entitlement based on the evidence before it.

The court examined the legal principles surrounding the evidential and legal effect of criminal convictions in social security appeals. It reviewed prior case law, noting that tribunals must generally treat convictions as having considerable probative weight but are not strictly bound by them, especially where new or conflicting evidence exists.

The court rejected the notion that a criminal conviction shifts the legal burden of proof in social security tribunals, although it may shift the evidential burden. It emphasised that tribunals operate under inquisitorial procedures without strict rules of evidence and must assess probative value carefully.

The court discussed public policy considerations, reaffirming that it is generally impermissible for a party to use civil or social security proceedings to collaterally attack a criminal conviction, unless there is convincing new evidence undermining the conviction. However, it acknowledged an exception for specialist tribunals with expertise in social security law to make independent findings on benefit entitlement, potentially differing from the criminal court’s conclusions.

Applying these principles, the court held that the tribunal should consider the evidence and admissions underlying the appointee’s conviction but is not bound by the conviction itself in determining the claimant’s benefit entitlement. The tribunal must also consider the overpayment recovery against the appointee in light of the claimant’s entitlement and the benefit actually received.

The court further clarified that the tribunal may have regard to the conviction as evidence, notwithstanding statutory provisions limiting consideration of circumstances arising after the decision date, analogous to medical evidence post-dating a decision.

Holding and Implications

The appeal was ALLOWED. The decision of the First-tier Tribunal was set aside, and the case was remitted to be reheard by a new tribunal in accordance with the directions provided.

The direct effect of this decision is that the claimant’s benefit entitlement must be reconsidered independently of the appointee’s criminal conviction, with the tribunal applying the legal principles outlined. The appointee’s conviction is relevant evidence but not determinative. The ruling clarifies the proper approach to criminal convictions in social security appeals but does not establish new precedent beyond the application of established principles to the facts.