Amicus Curiae (or 'Would the real Tom Appleby please stand up?')

I unexpectedly found myself wearing my 'tribunal suit' yesterday, appropriately (if accidentally) accessorised with a ladder up the left leg of my tights in proper Sally Archer style.  I don't rep for the CAB in my current role and it must be at least five years since I was last at our local venue; I was stepping into the breach as a favour for another organisation and, to be totally honest, grabbing an opportunity to see a PIP appeal in action. Confidentiality demands that I share no more details and anyway, I don't know the result, though I'm cautiously optimistic.

I had wondered whether there might be a Presenting Officer in attendance, since the rep who had asked me to help out with this case had encountered one at another recent PIP appeal.  This was unusual as POs tend only to appear for especially contentious cases, although there was a recent DWP announcement of  extra funding to provide them specifically for PIP appeals.  Understandably, reaction from the broader welfare rights lobby was hostile - this article from the excellent Dr Frances Ryan encapsulating the general sense of unfairness.

I'm inclined to share this concern although, if these new Presenting Officers adopted the ethos once prevalent in the role, they could be more of a help than a hindrance to unrepresented appellants, denied properly-trained advocates by cuts to Legal Aid and advice service budgets.  Although it suits my stories to (minor spoiler) cast PO Tom Appleby as one of the DWP 'good guys' it involved no great leap of the imagination for me to do so.  When I first started representing at appeals in the later 1980s, POs weren't simply the DWP's man (or woman) at the table.  Their role was to be a 'friend of the Tribunal' and they could - and often did - speak up for the appellant's case.


In response to a comment I made on Dr Ryan's article that POs could be a force for good but I feared the new intake might be cut from rather different cloth than their predecessors, I was pleased to see the following:


"I was a PO in the 80s and my training stressed that the role was one of amicus curiae. I would review the papers for every case and if I was confident the law had been applied incorrectly to the facts I would tell the tribunal so, referring them to the appropriate law, including case law if necessary. If there was time I would speak to the original decision maker and ask them to revise their decision to save time. That's what POs were supposed to do. I'd probably be sacked for it these days."


The writer's nom de plume xck33l gives no clue as to his/her home town or gender but I couldn't help imagining that it might be a softly-spoken Yorkshireman.  Or, alternatively, a well-spoken protocol droid.


If the new breed of POs are to bring consistency and fairness to PIP hearings, it is vital that they be allowed to exercise the freedom and integrity of the old guard of POs and not be fettered by targets for tribunal 'wins'.  On those terms, it would actually be rather a good job for some of the many benefits specialists thrown out of work by the loss of Legal Aid - as long as they could stay one step ahead of the Social Justice Ambassadors, of course!