Justice without Compassion? Reflections from my first Disability Living Allowance Tribunal
I attended as an observer to a DLA Appeal tribunal for one of Jamie’s service users, Johan (pseudonym).
This was my first time attending a tribunal and I was unsure what to expect exactly, although I already had my own preconceptions on the process.
After we met Johan outside the tribunal hearing centre, we were led inside to the waiting room where the clerk explained to us the process of the hearing; he was pleasant, neutral and professional. Johan submitted a Doctors letter as evidence and then we had a short wait before being called into the hearing room. On entering the room and being seated we were introduced to the three adjudicators on the board. There was one medical doctor, one specialist on disability needs assessment and the man who was leading proceedings with law background. All of them wore sinister suits, much expensive jewellery and ties that seemed far too tight, which already made me feel uneasy.
One at a time they began asking questions; the law man established a general background of the appeal which related to the independence and mobility issues due to Johan’s deteriorated hip. It was also acknowledged that Johan had mental health problems.
The doctor then began questioning about Johan’s condition a year ago when the initial decision rejecting the application for DLA was made. Johan answered some questions with some prompting or advocacy from Jamie, however he seemed somewhat vague on some of the questions being asked or would give diffuse answers that missed the point or gave too many superfluous facts, sometimes he would get to the point but just took a little longer than “average” getting there. However Johan was always very polite and respectful to the board. I was watching the faces of the board all the while and it was increasing apparent they were losing patience. There was little effort to hide their frustration, there were eyes raised to the heavens, shakes of the head and whispers to each other all in front of Johan and clearly regarding him. The tone in which they spoke to him became condensing and irritated. I was shocked by the lack of professionalism.
Pretty quickly the law man in charge stopped Johan from speaking and told him that as they were not getting sense from him they would have to direct all questions to Jamie. There was no accounting for the mental health problems that he suffered from and the impact this might have on his ability to answer questions, or consideration of the role that nerves and anxiety in a tribunal hearing may play. Or indeed the simple fact that not everyone in the world communicates in a certain prescribed way.
It felt too me as though once Johan gave some incoherent answers he was reduced to a mere subject to be discussed and there was a disinterest in him as a person. If there was any acknowledgment of him as a person it was manifested as passive resentment or bemused frustration.
Questions then later came from the disability needs specialist who spoke directly to Johan, and this time he was much more able to answer accurately, although Jamie still advocated on his behalf as well. At this point the questioning dealt with Johan’s ability to dress himself; he hesitated on some answers and eventually said “it’s embarrassing this you know”. This statement was dismissed out of hand and he was pressed to answer the questions.
At the end of the hearing the law man did apologise to Johan for overruling him. He explained that they were interested in facts only. Yet to me it seemed they had already brought their personal feelings and prejudices into the proceedings based on Johan’s inability to answer their questions in the manner they wanted.
We were led back to the waiting room to await the decision. I imagined the discussion amongst the board and could hear them in my head expressing their exasperation with Johan, perhaps making a depreciating comment or two about him. I felt sure his appeal would be rejected.
Jamie went back in for the decision and we then left the tribunal centre before he told us the result: he had won! I was surprised
Throughout the hearing I felt anger running through me at the attitude of the board, which felt so far removed from the daily reality of Johan’s situation (and many other like him). I very much appreciate the need to establish facts in making a decision of this nature. What struck me was the complete lack of compassion, patience and empathy demonstrated by the board in establishing these facts with Johan, a person with complex needs. I am left wondering how a board can be deemed in a position to pass a decision that effects so profoundly lives they are so very much removed from. Jamie said that the board had told him that Johan had won the appeal because of him. This is great; it demonstrates the value of our support work. But I can only wonder how that is justice? What if Johan did not have Jamie? How can you have justice without compassion? And how can you have compassion without humanity; an understanding of the human condition of those you are passing decisions on? A human condition that isn’t found under a tailored suit, decorated in gold or trapped in the noose of a tie.