Click the star to add/remove an item to/from your individual schedule.
You need to be logged in to avail of this functionality,
and to see the links to virtual rooms.
Log in
Accepted Paper:
Inconsistent truths: how social and racial distance between judges and appellants shapes the allocation of welfare benefits in United Kingdom
Aude Lejeune
(CNRS, University of Lille)
My paper explores how social and racial distance between judges and appellants shapes the allocation of social benefits in the United Kingdom. It relies on observations of hearings at the social security tribunals and on interviews with judges, appellants, legal services, and solicitors.
Paper Abstract:
My paper explores how lay people turn to the tribunal to challenge the non-granting of welfare benefits in the United Kingdom. It specifically examines cases involving benefits that target people with disabilities or people who are not able to work because of health condition, in which judges – who are a panel of professional judges, doctors, and disability experts – make decisions about their health condition and their (in)ability to work and/or to perform different tasks (walking, feeding themselves, etc.). In this context, appellants are asked to produce evidence and to be consistent in their answers and in the medical documents they provide. My paper relies on observations of hearings at the social security tribunals and on interviews with judges, appellants, legal services, and solicitors. I argue the social and racial distance between the appellants and the judges creates misunderstandings and what judges define as “inconsistencies” in appellants’ discourse.