Dunno if this has been asked before, or even if i'm asking in the right place, but can anyone point me at where the role of a Tribunal Judge is defined?

TIA

Afraid not, i'd already scoured the webpages of the Judiciary. I was hoping for a definition in law, so have also scoured the Courts and Enforcement Act 2007. I haven't found it in there either, but at 312 pages, i could easily have missed it.

PS. I note your link leads to the Judiciary in England and Wales, I'm in Scotland. I have already looked up the Scottish Judiciary pages too, there is no further content on their site.

I've also emailed the SSCSA in Glasgow, yet to gain a response....

Can I ask why you want the definition - it may help us to help you.

At a recent Tribunal for ESA, i was effectively ambushed by a prosecutor, who had seemingly made her mind up before i set foot in the room.

My understanding was that the role of a Tribunal Judge was to form a balanced view based on evidence available to the Tribunal. This one attacked my credibility from the word go, and didn't offer me the chance for a response on that topic until the very end of the hearing.

I need to wait for the Statement of Reasons to come through the post before declaring full grounds for an appeal to the Upper Tier, but there is already evidence of bias.

I need to know where the role of the Judge is legally defined, since i will have to present a legal argument against what happened in that room

It isn't the role of the judge that you need legally defined then. There are a few upper tribunal decisions on how a judge can and can't treat the evidence of the appellant, and how to judge the credibility of the appellant. Once you get the statement of reasons, it should give their reasons for prefering other evidence over yours - they have to state, in the SOR, why they discounted your evidence, and if they don't explain why, then this is an error of law that can be argued at upper tribunal.

Thanks for that.

So the role of a Tribunal isn't defined in law at all then? There is also a distinct possibility of a complaint against her, the audio recording from the Tribunal will certainly back up my case, but i have to wait for this statement of reasons...

Thanks for that.

So the role of a Tribunal isn't defined in law at all then? There is also a distinct possibility of a complaint against her, the audio recording from the Tribunal will certainly back up my case, but i have to wait for this statement of reasons...

The role is to consider all the evidence, apply appropriate weight to the evidence, and make a decision based on 'balance of probabilities'.

Great that your Tribunal was recorded, that will certainly help you.

Many thanks

A tribunal judge's role is inquisatorial. The judge is expected to read all the relevant papers in advance of the hearing and weigh up the evidence contained and determine any additional evidence required to make findings of fact to determine the appeal.

They are not restricted to accepting or rejecting the contentions made by the parties.

It is open to the tribunal to ask questions of any one present to assist them in determining the facts.

Thanks for that

At a recent Tribunal for ESA, i was effectively ambushed by a prosecutor, who had seemingly made her mind up before i set foot in the room.

Of course the prosecutor had made their mind up, that's their job, to win the case by fair means or foul for their client. They arent there to help, aid or assist you in any way at all.

The judge is there to consider all evidence, however, a professional silk will know the right words to gain the right responses and to please the judges.

Having acted as a LIP several times before (and won both), courts and Barristers dont like non professionals in their place of work.

Anyone attempting an appeal should seriously read up on the process.

BUT

Many Judges do seem to err on the side of the appellant than the DWP, that's one good point.

Of course the prosecutor had made their mind up, that's their job, to win the case by fair means or foul for their client. They arent there to help, aid or assist you in any way at all.

The judge is there to consider all evidence, however, a professional silk will know the right words to gain the right responses and to please the judges.

Having acted as a LIP several times before (and won both), courts and Barristers dont like non professionals in their place of work.

Anyone attempting an appeal should seriously read up on the process.

BUT

Many Judges do seem to err on the side of the appellant than the DWP, that's one good point.

Err, there is no 'prosecutor' in Tribunal proceedings. The DWP/LA/HMRC can send a representative, but they don't have the right to ask questions directly of the appellant, they are there to give evidence on behalf of the secretary of state. The only people who can ask questions are the Tribunal panel members. I think googlybear was actually referring to the Tribunal judge as a 'prosecutor'.

The judge should make a fair and proper consideration of the merits of the case otherwise they can be in breach of the overriding principle that a tribunal should act “fairly and justly” (Part 1 of the Tribunal Procedure (First-tier Tribunal)(Social Entitlement Chamber) Rules 2008

I think if I am reading what the op is saying is right. Others should be able to confirm the details above are right

Thanks for that. I'll get a read later, but i think this is more like what i'd been looking for.

Someone has drawn my attention to a post in a forum used by welfare rights advisors here:- http://www.rightsnet.org.uk/forums/viewthread/2535/

If you substitute Stoke-on-Trent for Edinburgh, and the other panel members for the Tribunal Judge, you could easily be reading about my hearing. Someone with more serious mental health issues than myself could easily be tipped over the edge.

Thanks for that. I'll get a read later, but i think this is more like what i'd been looking for.

Someone has drawn my attention to a post in a forum used by welfare rights advisors here:- http://www.rightsnet.org.uk/forums/viewthread/2535/

If you substitute Stoke-on-Trent for Edinburgh, and the other panel members for the Tribunal Judge, you could easily be reading about my hearing. Someone with more serious mental health issues than myself could easily be tipped over the edge.

Yes unfortunately these types of hearings can happen, I've been to them, and even as a rep, it is difficult to try and exert some notion of fairness - and it is mostly the doctors who go 'on the rampage' in these cases, though I have seen one unpleaseant judge - we were quite lucky for judges in our area. The fact that you have recorded it will obviously help you with any complaint about how you were treated. Once the statement of reasons arrives, and you can see their reasoning and findings of fact, you'll then be able to build your case, maybe find some UT judgements supporting your arguments. Though I would advise getting an experienced rep for any appeal to UT.

Many thanks.

It was the Tribunal who recorded the hearing, the clerk told me this was now the norm, but from what i hear, it's certainly not nationwide.

A complaint - something i could really do without, but something i feel i really must do. I don't take the decision lightly either, a complaint against a Judge can rattle many cages. But she can't be allowed to get away with things like this.

Shafted first by Atos, then by the Tribunal, i'm pretty sure that without the recording, most people wouldn't believe what happened...