Tel:0161 829 8100 | Email:

2nd Floor, Arndale House, The Arndale Centre, Manchester, M4 3AQ

Doug Paulley
Email: / Our ref:FOI972
Date:15 April 2016

Dear Doug Paulley

Subject: Freedom of Information Request

Thank you for your email dated 20 March 2016 in which you made the following request:

"My request is for information as to:

1) The source of funding to pay the costs of finding and providing an assessor in proceedings under the Equality Act. Is "the remuneration of the assessor is to be paid out of money provided by Parliament" as defined in CPR 35.15(7)? Or are the costs in the case?

2) Whether the losing party in such proceedings incurs the cost of the remuneration of the assessor.

3) Whether the court may order any party to deposit in the court office a specified sum in respect of an assessor’s fees, in compliance with CPR 35.15(6).

4) If and how recovery of costs of remuneration of assessors is carried out where such cases are in the Small Claims Track. To the best of my analysis, CPR 27.14 and PD 27 doesn't include provision for recovering costs of remuneration of assessors. It mentions experts, but not assessors.

My question is therefore, how are assessors funded and paid for? Given that they are mandatory for all cases under the Equality Act, with few exceptions, how is it ensured that they are paid for WITHOUT any potential disadvantage or discouragement to discriminated parties making requests?

Also: how do courts, or should courts, find and appoint suitable assessors? Your submission in the above case is exacting on the required attributes of an assessor:

They "must have experience in the matter which forms the subject of the claim" and "That experience must be above and beyond that which might be expected of a judge or amongst the ordinary population because it is that which qualifies the person to be an assessor (as opposed to a juror in the event of a jury trial)"; similarly "having experience in hearing Employment Tribunal claims will not by itself qualify a person for appointment as an assessor in a discrimination claim in the County Court. Further, the fact that a non-legal member sitting in the Employment Tribunal will have received some training in discrimination will no doubt assist them in performing their general judicial tasks, but it will not confer special “skill and experience.”

This is an exacting specification. Your submission suggests that there should be a list or lists of assessors and their qualifications for cases under the Equality Act under each protected characteristic.

Is this extant - i.e. are there such lists, including ones for equality act cases for disability discrimination in the provision of goods and services?

If not, how do courts appoint assessors according to their obligations under S119 of the Equality Act? How do they ensure that the assessor meets the above requirements? If they don't, how should they?

Please provide all guidance and internal and external policy documents regarding the mechanism for funding of assessors (in general, and in particular in cases in the small claims court, for impecunious litigants, for unrepresented litigants, and for claimants taking action for disability discrimination in the provision of services), and all research about how this has been undertaken in practice.

Please provide similar guidance, documents and research for mechanisms for finding and appointing suitable assessors." [Ends]

Response

Following a search of our records we have located the following information which we consider to be relevant to your request:

  1. Letter from Government Equalities Office (GEO) to Judge Latham dated October 2010
  1. HM Courts & Tribunal Services Local TIB-it dated 12 November 2015, concerning the Revised Guidance on Lay Assessors
  1. Guidance on lay assessors for discrimination cases in the County Court under the Equality Act 2010
  1. Lay Assessors Annex A - REJ Contact list
  1. Carey V Metropolitan Police Service Approved Judgement dated 17 July 2014

These documents are being disclosed to you alongside this letter.

Please note that redactions have been made to the GEO's letter to Judge Latham and the REJ Contact list, to avoid unfair processing of third party personal data. The redactions have been made on the basis of the S40(2) - Personal Data exemption; a detailed explanation can be found in Appendix A.

For completeness we should also note Section114 (7) of the Equality Act 2010 and Practice Direction 35.15 have also been identified as relevant information. These documents are already in the public domain and can be accessed via the links below:

If you are unhappy with our response and wish to request an internal review of our decision please write to the Corporate Communications Team at:

Email:

or

Equality and Human Rights Commission

2nd Floor Arndale House
The Arndale Centre
Manchester
M4 3AQ

During the independent review the handling of your information request will be reassessed by Commission staff afresh.

If following the review you are not content with the outcome you may apply directly to the Information Commissioner's Office (ICO) at:

The Information Commissioner's Office
Wycliffe House
Water Lane
Wilmslow
Cheshire
SK9 5AF

Generally the ICO cannot provide a decision until you have exhausted the review process within the Equality and Human Rights Commission.

If the Commission can be of any further assistance please contact us using the details provided below.

Yours sincerely

Philippa Bullen

Corporate Communications Officer

DDI:0161 829 8323

Correspondence Unit| Corporate Affairs

Tel:0161 829 8100 | Email:

2nd Floor, Arndale House, The Arndale Centre, Manchester, M4 3AQ