ANNUAL REPORT 2009 Index

Free Representation Unit Annual Report to 31 March 2009

Page

Chair’s Introduction 1

Case Studies 2-11

Trustees’ Report 12-16

Legal and Administrative Information 17

Independent Auditors’ Report 18

Statement of Financial Activities 19

Balance Sheet 20

Principal Accounting Policies 21

Notes to the Accounts 22-26

Donors 27-28

We are most grateful to Royle Financial Print Limited for their generous sponsorship of the costs of this annual report.

The case studies on pages 2 to 11 show a few of our volunteer representatives (‘reps’) and tell the stories of some of the cases which they have handled. In those stories, the client names used are fictitious but do together give an indication of the gender and ethnic origin of our clients.

The cover photograph is of FRU volunteer Sarah-Jane Smiles, who tells the story of one of her cases on page 10. Photograph by Patrick Barth © King’s College . Chair’s Introduction

As usual, Clive Tulloch has been so successful in providing “more volunteers are being recruited a link between staff and the management committee that it and more cases are being completed in becomes hard to see how FRU ever managed without him. both of the core areas of employment We are also grateful to our funders, without whom FRU would and social security law” not have achieved such an excellent set of financial results this year. Regrettably, this will not continue unless new sources FRU has enjoyed another successful year. A change to the of funding are found for the future, especially in these difficult ratification process has meant that more volunteers are being economic times. recruited and that more cases are being completed in both of There has always been more to FRU than work and the the core areas of employment and social security law. This has atmosphere in the office has been particularly lively this year resulted in more cases being referred by our referral agencies, with the increase in the number of reps. There have also been a trend that we hope will continue in future years. A small successful social events including a quiz to welcome new reps selection of our cases is set out on pages 2 to 11. at the start of the academic year and a well-attended Christmas A small number of the cases taken on by FRU have been not event which took place at the Knight’s Templar pub. in the South-East but in the East Midlands, with the opening The mock tribunal to celebrate National Pro Bono Week has now of a new branch in Nottingham, in association with our friends become something of an annual FRU tradition which, this year, at Nottingham Law School. This exciting development remains marked the transition from the Social Security Commissioners in its early days but, if it is successful, it is hoped that similar to the Administrative Appeals Chamber of the Upper Tribunal by schemes will be introduced in other cities, helping FRU to staging an income support case, kindly hosted by Freshfields achieve its goal of becoming a truly national organisation. Bruckhaus Deringer, which was the most entertaining to date, There are no immediate plans to make any other dramatic as the panel engaged fully with the issue that was before them. changes. I stood for election on a platform of consolidation and Unusually, this year, FRU was featured in a prime-time television it is a testament to the success of the FRU model that my rival programme, when one of our reps, Kakoly Pandé, took part in for the role of chair advocated a similar position. I continue to the BBC2 documentary series ‘The ’, in which she was see no reason to make changes for the sake of it and regard shown meeting a client at our offices. It is hoped that, as well stability as a strength rather than a sign of inaction. as softening the public perception of the legal profession, it also The look of FRU has changed this year with much needed showed the worth of legal charities. It is also hoped that, with or updates to the website and to the database, including a brand without the public gaze upon it, FRU will continue to thrive. new logo. We are very grateful for the pro bono support that we have received from School Digital in making these changes. We are also grateful for the contribution of the staff, in this and other matters. That FRU could not run without its legal officers and administrators sometimes seems too obvious to mention but I do want to acknowledge their ongoing commitment towards James Medhurst the success of the charity. Chair

2nd December 2009

1 Case Studies

Jenny Barnes is a trainee with , and was seconded to the FRU for three very rewarding months. She studied History at Cambridge, and then went on to do the GDL and LPC in London. Barbara Arosio came to FRU because she was facing an application for a costs order for approximately £30,000 in relation to a tribunal claim that she had recently lost against her previous employers. Right or wrong in her tribunal claim, when Barbara came to FRU she was depressed, fraught and scared by the prospect of having to pay the legal fees of her ex-employer. Jenny Barnes Barbara had worked very hard for her whole life and was proud to provide a home for her three children by herself. She had incurred vast credit card and bank debt in order to fund her tribunal claim and being ordered to pay the hefty costs order would have been disastrous for her and her family. Jenny successfully resisted the costs application on behalf of Barbara against a very well qualified . Barbara was overcome with relief after the successful verdict and told Jenny that she hoped to be able to move on from her disappointment at tribunal and get her life back on track.

Gabriel Barton studied History and International Relations at the Sorbonne, was a pupil at Essex Court and currently volunteers at Camden Community Law Centre. Aside from FRU work, he is devoted to mastering end-to-end team basketball: he says he needs more practice. Jason Smedley worked for his uncle as a bookbinder. Jason’s uncle, who managed the business, liked to belittle Jason. One day, when Jason finally had the courage to stand up for himself, his uncle attacked him. The uncle pushed Jason in the back, repeatedly aggressively swore at him and told him if he did not like his treatment he could leave. Jason was very upset and felt he could not go back to work. Gabriel Barton Having accepted the repudiation of his contract, Jason found himself out of work for some months. He decided to bring an unfair dismissal claim to show his uncle that his behaviour was outrageous and to recoup some of his losses. The uncle retaliated by giving Jason a bad reference and by withholding an unpaid annual bonus. We prepared Jason’s case very thoroughly and despite attempts by the uncle’s representative to intimidate Jason into giving up, made it clear that the case would fight. Once the uncle’s representative had seen how detailed and compelling our witness statements were, he advised settlement. We achieved 90% of the sum sought and Jason has now been able to pay off his credit cards and put this difficult episode behind him.

Oliver Bennett was working in IT marketing when he decided to become a barrister. He started by studying law with the Open University, and loved it so much that he finished his degree full-time at SOAS. He has just completed the BVC at City Law School (formerly ICSL) and has spent his year undertaking social security representation for FRU clients. Oliver has an interest in Islamic culture, history and law and speaks some Arabic thanks to spending his undergraduate summers studying in Syria. Emma Jones is in her late twenties and suffers severely from sickle cell disease. The pain in her joints Oliver Bennett can become so bad that only opiate analgesia offers relief. She was a shop assistant a few years ago, but could not continue because even light duties exacerbate her condition. When her Incapacity Benefit was due for review last year, she was examined by a DWP medical examiner. Emma felt that he had been unable to appreciate fully the effect of her condition and the benefit was withdrawn. Oliver represented her on appeal before tribunal as his first case for FRU. He argued that although she appeared to function normally without pain during the examination, the DWP had failed to consider whether or not she was able to do so with reasonable regularity. The tribunal agreed and allowed her appeal.

2 Ian Birch read economics at Cambridge. He ran his own consulting business and worked at Transport for London for a number of years before deciding to take his GDL at City University in London. He has just started his BVC at BPP Law School. He spent six weeks last summer in Sydney, gaining experience of life at the Australian Bar, with Alun Hill of Chalfont Chambers. When not studying he likes to go ballroom dancing. Ian represented Tracey Gilmour, a student, in her claim of unlawful deduction of wages. Tracey had responded to an advertisement on the Job Centre website for a legal case researcher, and was delighted Ian Birch to have found what she thought was an ideal part time job to fit around her law studies. Unfortunately the employer turned out to be all too willing to exploit her enthusiasm and Tracey’s joy turned to despair. Even before she had started in the office she was asked to work unpaid at home. Then, at the end of both her first and second days the employer started trying to haggle over the number of hours she had worked, asking Tracey, “How much do you think you’ve earned today?” She tried to get Tracey to do more unpaid work at home and when Tracey questioned this she said it was “good experience” for her, that she was “lucky to have the opportunity” and that she should consider “volunteering.” If she wanted to be paid she could “go and work in a shop.” Tracey naturally became disillusioned and the relationship started to break down. Further tactics were deployed against Tracey. The pay cheque for the first two days, which was short in any case, was cancelled after it had already been banked, and a ‘goodwill gesture’ of less than half the amount was offered in its place. The employer then started claiming that Tracey had been on an unpaid probation period (for a job which paid only just above the minimum wage of £5.73 per hour). This had not been mentioned at interview or any other time. The employer also starting making unfounded and hurtful accusations about Tracey’s ability to work and her motivation, saying she was “useless” and was “only in it for the money.” Tracey resigned and sought advice from the Citizens’ Advice Bureau, who referred her to FRU. Although the amount of money at stake was modest, Tracey felt strongly that she had been wronged and this was the main reason she wanted to take matters to an employment tribunal. The employer’s unreasonableness and complete lack of awareness of her obligations and responsibilities were on full display at the hearing. Under cross-examination she was unable to maintain a consistent version of events; in particular, her claim that Tracey had arrived late and left early were shown to be completely false. Indeed her overall recollection of events proved less than consistent when subjected to cross-examination. Her willingness to deploy one tactic after another in avoid paying Tracey’s wages became all too clear. The judge was not impressed and awarded Tracey the wages due to her in full together with a forty per cent uplift to reflect the employer’s failure to follow the statutory dispute procedure: a very satisfying result.

Andrew Birtles read geography at University College London and has just completed the GDL at the College of Law. His interests include football, music and films. Mr O’Callaghan suffered from depression and degenerative back pain, as a result of which he lived in a commune and could not cope with any employment. However, when Mr O’Callaghan’s claim for incapacity benefit was turned down decisively, he did not believe there was any way the decision could be overturned. Winning Mr O’Callaghan’s case was enormously challenging. To make matters worse, on the date of the appeal a phone call was received one hour before the tribunal explaining Mr O’Callaghan couldn’t get Andrew Birtles out of bed due to depression and wouldn’t be attending. With difficulty Andrew negotiated a rarely granted adjournment. When the next appeal approached the same situation occurred; one hour before, Mr O’Callaghan called to say he couldn’t turn up due to his depression. This time Andrew was prepared. He had provided a detailed written submission in advance and the tribunal, exceptionally, agreed to hold the hearing without the claimant and with Andrew attending alone. The chances of such a tribunal being won are slim. However Mr O’Callaghan’s case was successfully argued, using his very absence on the day to his advantage. When the case was won the head of the tribunal personally commended Andrew on his professionally written and well-argued submission, without which the case could not have been successful.

3 Case Studies continued

James Clifford is a barrister at Maitland Chambers. James received a Special Mention in the 2008 Bar Pro Bono Awards, having been nominated by FRU’s Social Security Caseworker, Emma Baldwin. James continues to represent claimants through FRU in the social security and war pensions fields. In A v Sec of State for Defence (the note in FRU’s previous report, reporting repeated attempts by the Ministry of Defence to deny the claimant the benefit of the rulings of the tribunals, concludes by saying “the case continues …”), he finally got his pension, in July 2008, after two further appearances before James Clifford the First-tier Tribunal following his successful appeal to the Upper Tribunal. James and FRU represented him throughout. In December 2008 James represented W in an appeal before the Upper Tribunal, concerning the topical issue of the interaction between the State Earnings-Related Pension Scheme and a person’s private occupational scheme. The Court of Appeal has recently given permission to appeal, and has asked James and FRU to represent W in the Court of Appeal, which of course we will try to do. Also in April 2009 James represented H in a similar case in the High Court, which raised issues under the Human Rights Act 1998. In both the above cases the court thanked FRU and James for their assistance.

Thomas Crockett took a BA in History and Politics at York before completing the GDL and the BVC. He joins the Chambers of John Ross QC as a pupil in October 2009. His interests include politics, philosophy, all country sports, fly fishing, travel (South America), opera, polo, tabby cats, 18th century drinking glasses and classic MG motor cars. Mrs Bashira Mukhtar is a refugee from Baghdad and suffers from PTSD, depression and associated anxiety relating to her children in UK and wider family in Iraq stemming from her traumatic experiences during the Second Iraq War. She applied for Incapacity Benefit but it was refused. Thomas Crockett However, there were some serious flaws in the decision maker’s assessment of her condition, in that the extent and severity of her mental health problems had not been appreciated adequately despite the decision maker being made aware of such details as Mrs Mukhtar’s referral to the Foundation for the Victims of Torture, well-documented mental-health consultations and continuing medication. Mrs Mukhtar ‘s case was helped greatly by additional evidence from her GP, whom Tom persuaded to provide a detailed report in time for the Tribunal. The case was swiftly won, largely on the basis of Tom’s written submissions submitted in advance of the hearing, which entailed less than 5 minutes’ additional oral questions by the tribunal, before they confirmed Mrs Mukhtar’s entitlement to the benefit. Mrs Mukhtar had felt lost in the system, she did not understand the benefit process or how to go about challenging what has transpired to be a thoroughly erroneous decision which has had such a significant impact upon her and her family’s lives.

4 Laura Feldman read History at King’s College London, completed a second degree in Law at Oxford University and the Bar Vocational Course at BPP Law School. She is currently studying for a LLM at the University of Toronto and will be completing at Hailsham Chambers. Laura enjoys reading historical fiction, riding her motorcycle and regularly plays hockey. Laura represented Mrs Lee, a lady who worked in the for twenty years after immigrating from China. Mrs Lee suffered from Hepatitis B and had become increasingly depressed in her work as a cleaner in a restaurant. The other staff ignored her and isolated her. Her husband and son died so Laura Feldman she was alone and depressed. In addition, Mrs Lee spoke very little English which made her isolation even more acute. As she grew older she had to give up the intensive cleaning work. She was awarded Incapacity Benefit because of her illness. However, the benefit was then removed. Laura received the file and immediately realised the difficulties the applicant had encountered completing the lengthy form and explaining her problems to the medical officer who examined her. Having met the client it was very clear that the lady was suffering a great deal, emotionally and physically. There was a collateral point of law which arose in the case, namely whether Hepatitis B was a condition which automatically allowed the client to claim Incapacity Benefit. This had not been considered in any previous case. The tribunal held it did not but awarded the client her benefit. This was on basis that her level of incapacity was, just, sufficiently serious. They took into account her mental as well as physical problems. One tribunal member fortunately spoke her language and it finally seemed that the client was being listened to. The tribunal thanked Laura for her very helpful written submissions and she has kept in contact with the client who is much happier now she knows she will not have to return to the hard and isolating cleaning work that she once did.

Sonia Ferguson did a BA in English at Sussex University then a Masters in Critical Theory. She is now doing the CPE at College of Law, . With a small child Sonia has little spare time but she enjoys theatre, literature and Asian Food when she can. Elizabeth Jurowski had a series of mental and physical health problems which had a profound impact on her life and her ability to work. Following a medical assessment by the DWP examiner it was determined that Ms Jurowski was no longer entitled to Incapacity Benefit as she did not meet the threshold of incapacity. Ms Jurowski appealed the decision but the second decision maker did not feel able to change Sonia Ferguson the decision and the appeal was denied. The case was referred to FRU from the CAB. Sonia appealed the decision on the grounds that the examining medical practitioner had underestimated the severity of Ms Jurowski’s condition for both physical and mental factors and that not enough weight had been given to Ms Jurowski’s account of her condition, in particular the mental health problems. It appeared there was confusion as to the evidential weight to be given to medical reports where they conflict with the claimant’s testimony. By asking the tribunal to reconsider the criteria which had been applied to Ms Jurowski with reference to her own account and corroboration from her GP, the tribunal were satisfied that Ms Jurowski did indeed satisfy the personal capability assessment and her benefit was reinstated.

5 Case Studies continued

Keith Gordon read mathematics at Oxford University and then qualified as a chartered accountant and chartered tax adviser during the 1990s. In 2000, he decided to switch to the Bar and was called by Lincoln’s Inn in 2003. Since 2006, he has been practising from Atlas Chambers advising mainly on tax law. Keith first became involved with FRU between two in 2004 and has dealt with both employment and social security cases. In recent years, he has tried to focus on those cases where his background in tax law would prove an advantage. In the past year, he has been continuing to deal with a tax credits case that he first dealt with in 2005. Keith Gordon His client, Ruth, and her former husband had only one child from their marriage. Both have claimed tax credits in respect of their son but the tax credit rules permit only one claimant per child. Ruth was initially awarded the credits until the Tax Credit Office realised that there was a competing claim and then withdrew the credits, requiring Ruth to pay back what they ruled to have been overpaid credits. In 2005, Keith represented Ruth at the Social Security Tribunal and had her claim reinstated. The consequence of this was that the husband then had his claim withdrawn so he appealed that decision and had that heard by a tribunal. Remarkably the tax credit rules which permit only one claimant per child allow both parents to make unilateral appeals to the tribunal which can then be heard independently of each other. Therefore, between 2003 and 2007, both parents were being awarded tax credits in respect of the same child because each had successfully appealed decisions by the Tax Credits Office to the Social Security Tribunal. During 2007, the Tax Credits Office tried again to restrict the number of claimants in respect of Ruth’s son. Once again, they made the decision in favour of the father – but based it upon some statistics which were full of arithmetical errors, inconsistent arguments and some factually inaccurate assumptions. When Keith attended the Tribunal, the Tax Credits Office took the precaution of inviting the father to attend as a witness. Eventually, the Chairman concluded that Ruth should be awarded the credits because she was the parent with main responsibility for the son. Unfortunately, this decision is not binding on Ruth’s ex-husband. He could very well appeal against any subsequent decision by the Tax Credits Office not to treat him as the parent with main responsibility for his son. However, given that we have heard nothing from them in the past 9 months we can assume only that, having heard the evidence from his ex-wife, he has decided not to pursue his claim any further. Otherwise, this case could continue to reverberate until the child turns 18 (in 2016).

Lawrence Wiseman received a BA in Environmental Science at Washington University in St Louis his first time through university, but, having decided to retrain into law, he took the LLB at Queen Mary, . In his free time, he enjoys kayaking, cooking and teaching martial arts. He is also currently undertaking a number of placements at leading firms and chambers around London. Sharon White is a single mother of two who used to enjoy spending time with friends and family, and was well-regarded at the bakery where she worked. Following a series of family traumas, including her son’s conviction for a serious assault and her daughter being diagnosed with schizophrenia, Sharon began to Lawrence Wiseman suffer from severe depression; she cut off contact with the outside world, lost her job, and began suffering from alcohol dependence. Sadly, she was so embarrassed about her situation that she hid her condition from the government doctor who examined her, and was thus refused incapacity benefit. In Lawrence’s meetings with Sharon, he encouraged her to open up about these sensitive personal issues, enabling him to work with her GP to develop thorough submissions for the Social Security Tribunal. With the help of the FRU legal officer, he developed a 20-page submission which, when it went before the tribunal, was so persuasive that the tribunal granted Sharon’s appeal without the need for any further arguments, thus saving her from the ordeal of giving evidence or the uncertainty of a drawn-out appeals process.

6 Triona Kennedy read English at Cambridge University. Having worked as a musician and lecturer, she began undertaking Employment cases for FRU during her CPE year at City University. She recently completed the BVC at BPP and will soon begin pupillage at 6 Pump Court. Writing and performing music continue to be strong interests. Isabella Cambó was employed as a housekeeper and nanny and required to wear a servant’s uniform. She worked in a private household with three children. She asked her employers to provide payslips and to pay her the minimum wage, in response to which her employer shouted “if you don’t like it, get out and Triona Kennedy go!” The Claimant was referred to FRU by her Citizen’s Advice Bureau when the Respondent contested every aspect of the claims for unpaid wages, constructive unfair dismissal and failure to pay national minimum wage, counterclaiming for alleged property damage. The factual matters in issue needed to be determined by a Tribunal as the Respondent had paid the claimant in cash in an ad hoc manner without keeping records, even though they had assisted her to set up a bank account. The claimant spoke little English and the respondent – who initially appeared as a litigant-in-person – aggressively sought to deter her from continuing her suit by threatening to ‘report’ her to UK Immigration and to her new employers. An obstacle was encountered when, at a Preliminary Hearing, a Tribunal found that the claimant’s case was insufficiently pleaded by the CAB. However, on appeal to the Employment Appeal Tribunal the pleadings were re-instated and the case went to a full hearing. At the substantive hearing, no award was made to the claimant: she was not compensated for her employer’s failure to pay minimum wage on the basis that her duties fell within the exemption for au pairs. Nevertheless, the Tribunal admonished the employers for their conduct towards their erstwhile employee and their failure to pay tax or national insurance on her behalf. They commended the claimant’s representative and delivered judgment compelling the respondent to pay the claimant her final wage, to abandon their spurious counterclaim and to provide payslips which assisted the claimant in respect of tax and immigration matters. The claimant found the experience of putting her account to the Tribunal, with the aid of an interpreter, both empowering and helpful in settling emotive aspects of the dispute.

Anna Macey studied philosophy at Oxford University, and, after two gap years, took the GDL at City University, the BVC at BPP Law School and an LLM at LSE. Anna is a committed volunteer, and is actively involved with several legal charities. Outside law, Anna is a keen traveller, having undertaken three trips of over six months to South America, India and New Zealand, and trekker, undertaking numerous long distance treks. Anna represented Robert Meade in the Employment Appeal Tribunal in April 2008. Mr. Meade had been dismissed after he refused to work overtime unless he was paid for it. He represented himself at the original Anna Macey Employment Tribunal hearing in Croydon and lost. He then made two written applications to appeal to the EAT which were rejected. He then made a last oral application representing himself and permission was given for him to have a preliminary hearing. At the preliminary hearing a barrister represented him, gained permission for a full hearing and advised him to contact FRU. Anna picked up the case. The employer argued at the EAT that Mr. Meade’s contract of employment stated he worked on a “job and finish basis”, and so could be required to work any number of hours and had no right to overtime payments; although the contract did provide for overtime payments, these were discretionary according to the Respondent and the original tribunal. The EAT overruled the tribunal, holding Mr. Meade did not have to work any number of hours as part of his contract, and so his refusal to do so rendered the decision to dismiss unfair. The case was remitted back to a full hearing. The day before the rehearing was due to take place in February 2009 the case settled for £14,000.

7 Case Studies continued

Chris Stone is now a barrister at Devereux Chambers, specialising in employment and personal injury work. Before turning to law he studied history and economics at Oxford and read for a Masters in International Relations before working for four years as a strategy consultant at Accenture. He got married this summer. Mr Benedetti had worked as a chef at the Hercules Diner for over 15 years. He claimed that he had been unfairly dismissed. The challenge in this case was proving that it was the same business – it had changed hands twice in that time. Chris had to prove that on each occasion there had been a Transfer Chris Stone of Undertakings. Once that was established, proving an unfair dismissal was fairly straightforward. The case was complicated by the fact that there were two respondents, the café company and its owner, one respondent only turned up at lunch-time and the other required a translator; neither had provided witness statements. Mr Benedetti, who himself spoke faltering English, really appreciated a representative who could keep the arguments and submissions ordered during the very confusing day. The Tribunal awarded Mr Benedetti re-instatement into the job he loved, securing his long service statutory rights, and a compensation award alongside.

Ned Westaway completed a BA in classics at UCL before getting interested in law and taking the conversion course at Sussex. He has since done a Masters in environmental law and after Bar exams starts Pupillage at Francis Taylor Building in October 2009. Ned is a keen climber, musician and is passionate about environmental protection. Eleanor Bohun’s was Ned’s first case as a FRU representative. Ms Bohun had been summarily dismissed in late 2007 on two counts of gross misconduct in her position as a residential scheme manager. The first of these was for handing out a master key to a friend of a resident without permission, the second was for Ned Westaway not undertaking adequate daily checks to notice another resident’s mental health issues. The allegations dated from January and November 2006 and there had been a protracted period for investigation, internal hearing and an internal appeal hearing, but Ms Bohun felt that there was a vendetta against her – the charges were not justified and the sanction was too harsh. Her union refused to back an Employment Tribunal case, so she was directed to FRU. The case was originally listed for one day, but given the large number of witnesses for the local authority employer, the Tribunal thought it better for it to be heard together and postponed it for a three-day hearing months later. This meant that when it came to the hearing there had at least been plenty of chances to read the huge bundle of materials – more than 600 pages. Eventually the Tribunal did find that Ms Bohun had been unfairly dismissed. By a majority they accepted the argument that insufficient evidence had been gathered to justify the conclusion about her daily checks – no witness statements had been taken and the decision seemed to be based on conjecture from the documentary evidence. A majority also considered that the investigatory procedure was not carried out diligently and took too long, to Ms Bohun’s detriment. The Tribunal were unanimous in concluding that the sanction was outside the range of reasonable responses of a reasonable employer. All of the witnesses had agreed that Ms Bohun had 13 years of exemplary disciplinary record prior to the allegations, yet this did not seem to have been borne into account. The disciplinary panel, by their own record, had taken just 10 minutes to consider mitigating factors put before them. Furthermore there was no evidence that less serious disciplinary options had been considered, in line with the employer’s own guidelines. The barrister for the other side had argued that misconduct in residential and elderly care work should be taken especially seriously, so even a seemingly harsh response was justified; this argument had swayed the internal appeal panel, but the Tribunal were not convinced and awarded £9,887 damages to Ms Bohun.

8 Ruth Oladipo is a GDL graduate from the College of Law, Bloomsbury where she has just started the BVC. She recently, all of sudden, became a Pilates addict and occasionally attempts writing the odd poem. Ruth’s second FRU case concerned Nouchine Harutunian, who was a British and Iranian citizen. The issue was whether she qualified for social security benefits at all, having spent the greater part of her life in Iran. It would have been a clear-cut case, and one which she would have been likely to lose, had it not been for the circumstances in which she arrived in the United Kingdom. She had been held in Iran against her Ruth Oladipo will and her passport and birth certificate had been kept from her. Eventually, with the help of friends, she managed to escape. She brought her young daughter and her few worldly possessions with her. Nouchine was refused benefit on the grounds that she was not habitually resident in the United Kingdom. She barely spoke English, although she had enrolled at a local college to take English lessons. Ruth helped her present relevant information and put forward legal arguments on her behalf. FRU’s free service enabled her to secure entitlement to benefit from the date of her first application, made soon after her arrival in the United Kingdom. Had it not been for FRU’s help, Nouchine fears that she would have been evicted from her flat, left to fend for her 4-year-old daughter with no support and at a time when she was least able to fend for herself.

Justin Pierce studied Law at the University of East London before studying the BVC part-time at the College of Law, Bloomsbury whilst continuing his PhD in Public Law. He currently lectures law part-time at the University of East London. Justin represented Mrs Milne, a pensioner, at a Social Security Appeals Tribunal Hearing in November 2008. The local authority was claiming an overpayment of some £60,000 in respect of Housing Benefit over an 11-year period. Mrs Milne, a proud woman, had endured the humiliation of an intensive interview at the offices of the Justin Pierce local authority. She was accused of being aware that she was being overpaid and failing to inform the authority of the mistake over the 11-year period. Additionally the local authority refused to rule out criminal proceedings in the matter. Mrs Milne suffers from severe depression and mental distress diagnosed over a period of 13 years following a series of traumatic events in her life. Her condition was exacerbated by having to deal with the uncertainty not only in respect of the possible criminal charges but also of having to repay £60,000. The case was prepared with the help of Liam Ayres from Linklaters, a trainee solicitor working on the case whilst on placement with the Trainee Litigation Programme at the College of Law. The local authority claimed that it was reasonable to consider that Mrs Milne had knowledge of the overpayment and had failed to inform the local authority of the overpayment. Mrs Milne expressed concern over two elements, firstly, the possibility of criminal charges and secondly, the insinuation that she had behaved in a criminal manner. She was resigned to losing the case and had become despondent and disillusioned with the system. At the commencement of the hearing, an immediate assurance was sought from the local authority that the threat of criminal proceedings would be withdrawn. Mrs Milne was visibly relieved when this was given. After careful and protracted argument of both facts and law from both sides, the tribunal found in favour of Mrs Milne. They held that, considering her personal circumstances and difficulties, Mrs Milne could not have reasonably been expected to know that the local authority had made an error. As a result, Mrs Milne had her faith restored in justice and the system overall.

9 Case Studies continued

Charles Raffin has returned to the bar after a period as an associate in the International Litigation and Arbitration Group of Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom (UK) LLP. He read Modern History at Oxford University, took the CPE at City University and the BVC at the School of Law. Charles has been a FRU representative for five years and helps to train our new recruits in Social Security Law. His other interests include cycle touring and Russian art. Mr Battaglia was an employee of a well known private members’ club. When he stopped working for the club, he was not paid holiday pay that was due to him and did not receive a payment in lieu of unused Charles Raffi n holiday entitlement. With the help of a local firm of , Mr Battaglia had brought a claim in the Employment Tribunal. When that firm was unable to keep representing Mr Battaglia on a pro-bono basis, FRU was able to help and put him in touch with Charles who took Mr Battaglia ‘s case forwards. While the Employment Tribunal found for Mr Battaglia, his former employer is now in administration and Charles is working with its administrators to help Mr Battaglia recover his damages.

Adela Read is a trainee solicitor with Linklaters LLP and spent 6 months on secondment at the FRU as part of her . She read PPE at Oxford University before converting to law. Nick Jones worked as a loader in Spitalfields Fruit Market for two years. In late December 2008 his two-year-old son fell critically ill. Nick spent the weekend with his son in hospital, leaving to go straight to work in the early hours of Monday morning. Arriving at work he explained the situation to his manager and explained that, if his son’s condition worsened he would have to leave. His manager became extremely angry and told Nick that, if he left, there was no need to come back. Nick left the stand and returned to Adela Read hospital to be with his son. He brought a claim for unfair dismissal and failure to provide written particulars, which his former employer refused to settle. Adela represented Nick at Tribunal for a one day hearing. The Tribunal found that he had been unfairly dismissed and that he had not been given a written contract. They awarded him £6,480 compensation, reduced by a third for contributory fault, on account of Nick choosing to leave, to £4,320.

Sarah-Jane Smiles read Law at King’s College London before completing her Bar Vocational Course. She is currently doing a criminal pupillage at 2 Hare Court. She has conducted cases for FRU since 2006. Miss Marie Arbuthnot is a victim of the 7/7 London Bombings. She was inside a Piccadilly Line tube train between King’s Cross and Russell Square stations when the bomb went off. She sustained severe tinnitus in her left ear. Despite medical evidence to the contrary, her assessment for compensation for criminal injury classified the tinnitus as permanent but not very severe. Prior to the hearing, Sarah-Jane Sarah-Jane Smiles sent very detailed submissions to the Criminal Injuries Compensation Panel outlining the medical evidence and evidence of the impact of the tinnitus on Miss Arbuthnot’s daily life. At the hearing Sarah-Jane conducted the evidence-in-chief of Miss Arbuthnot before she was cross-examined. She then made a closing speech, addressing the Panel of the merits of Miss Arbuthnot’s appeal. The Panel found that Miss Arbuthnot’s tinnitus fell into the higher category and awarded her substantial compensation. Miss Arbuthnot was delighted with the result and it marked the end of a long psychological process of coming to terms with the events of 7/7 for her.

10 James Manning graduated from the University of Cambridge in 2007 having read Law at Peterhouse, before attending the Inns of Court School of Law for the Bar Vocational Course. Having been called to the Bar in 2008, James returned to Cambridge to read for an MPhil in Criminology whilst continuing to take on cases through FRU. Outside the law, James enjoys music, travel and reading. Abdul Mohammed claimed to have been unfairly dismissed from his employment as a pizza delivery driver after he was sacked following a ‘whistle-blowing’ incident in which he reported his manager and other James Manning employees for various fraudulent and potentially criminal practices. The case was heard in the Stratford Employment Tribunal after it had not proved possible to reach a mutually acceptable settlement. Mr Mohammed lost his claim because the tribunal concluded that his dismissal was not a result of a protected disclosure. The case was of note because of the awkward position James was put in during his first appearance in tribunal. The day before the hearing, Mr Mohammed had applied, by email and without James’ knowledge, for a postponement on the grounds that he was not satisfied that James was adequately experienced to handle the case and that James had not had enough time to get to grips with the facts. This email also contained a plea that the tribunal provide the claimant with an experienced barrister. Needless to say, this application was rejected by the tribunal, but permission was given for the application to be made again in person at the start of the hearing the next day. Despite the fact that this amounted to a situation in which James was potentially professionally embarrassed, he continued to represent Mr Mohammed in order to avoid leaving the claimant without any representation, which would have seriously prejudiced the claim, and James renewed the application for the postponement at the start of the hearing: “On what grounds do you apply for the postponement?” asked Judge Pritchard-Witts. “On the same grounds contained in the email application made yesterday.” replied James. “And what were those grounds?” asked the Judge. “That Mr Mohammed considers me to be insufficiently experienced to handle this case, and that he doesn’t feel that I have had chance to get to grips with the facts” offered James. “Well Mr Manning, you can assure Mr Mohammed that I and the rest of the tribunal are more than satisfied that you are competent to deal with this case. Let’s move on.” was the Judge’s reassuring response. Having made James make this humiliating first submission to the tribunal, the Judge gave an encouraging consolation: a discussion ensued in which the Judge asked James and his professional opponent about their respective positions. James explained that he was a BVC student, had not yet been called to the Bar, and that this was his first case. The respondent’s representative explained that he has a non- practising barrister working as a professional for a business services firm. “Well I am glad we have equality of arms here today” was the Judge’s response. Despite the fact that Mr Mohammed lost his claim, he seemed to have been satisfied with the hearing he received, and concluded by thanking James profusely and apologising for his initial lack of faith.

11 Trustees’ Report

The trustees present their report with the accounts of The Free Public benefit Representation Unit, or FRU, for the period 1 April 2008 to We are clear that our service benefits all concerned:- 31 March 2009. The report has been prepared in accordance with Part VI of the Charities Act 1993. ■ The clients, none of whom can afford a lawyer, benefit financially when they win their cases. The accounts have been prepared in accordance with ■ the accounting policies set out on page 21 of the attached All clients benefit from an improvement in their access accounts and comply with the Unit’s constitution, the law and to justice: tribunal judges tell us that clients’ cases are the requirements of the Statement of Recommended Practice invariably improved by being presented by a FRU volunteer. “Accounting and Reporting by Charities” issued in March 2005 ■ Respondents have the advantage of a more professional (SORP 2005). approach to the representation of the claimant.

■ Tribunal judges are assisted by having our clients’ cases put Objectives and Activities in a form that they can readily understand. The Unit’s objects are these: ■ Volunteers receive training and acquire experience that is ■ We provide legal advice, negotiation and representation focused, concentrated and relevant.

before tribunals in the United Kingdom to those who could ■ The reputation of the justice system is enhanced as a result. not obtain it by reason of lack of means and legal aid. The trustees are of the view that, in each of these ways and ■ We thereby educate and train students of law, pupil having regard to the Charity Commission’s guidance, the Unit barristers, trainee solicitors and newly qualified lawyers. provides a public benefit. We believe that we are the largest single provider of free advocacy in the United Kingdom. We represent individuals Achievements and performance in the fields of Employment, Social Security, Criminal Injuries This has been a great year for FRU. Compensation and Immigration law, mainly in the Greater London area, although we have opened a branch in Nottingham. Volunteers Because ours is essentially an advocacy service, we take on At the heart of our work are our volunteers. FRU was founded cases referred to us by some 174 referral agencies, comprising by law students who wanted to volunteer and at the same time 88 Citizens’ Advice Bureaux, 24 Law Centres, 16 firms of to develop their skills as . That has not changed in solicitors and 46 other organisations, mainly charitable and our 37 years of existence. also including the Equality and Human Rights Commission. We Quality is obviously essential. We have therefore taken care to greatly value our relationships with them. provide potential FRU volunteers with excellent training, delivered Our service is provided by volunteers. Some 465 volunteers pro bono by a range of speakers none of whom charge for their took cases during the year. Most are on an LLB course, the Law services, who are listed on page 14. We then test an individual’s Conversion Course (GDL), the BVC or the LPC or have recently aptitude, and require them to attend a tribunal as an observer finished one of these. Some are in pupillage or serving training and to discuss their first client case with one of our legal officers contracts and a few are fully qualified. As well as providing a before ratifying them as members of FRU. much needed service, FRU representatives acquire invaluable The test used to take the form of an opinion based on a set practice and experience as advocates. of facts that we gave them. In practice, however, writing the Our volunteers are a varied group, from undergraduates to opinion took too long – 3 to 6 months was common, and those in a mid-life change of career, with 24% of black or some people took over a year, delaying the date from which minority ethnicity. The stories in this report show a few of them. they became active volunteers. We therefore changed the test

12 into a 90-minute exam taken within a few weeks of the training Outside London day. We have as a result had many more volunteers taking on Historically, FRU has worked almost exclusively within the cases, some 465 in the year to 31st March 2009 as compared Greater London area. This year, however, with tremendous with 348 in the year to 31st March 2008. It seems that only a support from Nottingham Law School, we have set up a small small part of the increase is temporary, reflecting the change in branch in Nottingham, and its first cases were taken shortly process, but we think that much is permanent, reflecting our after the end of the year under review. volunteers’ becoming available to take cases much earlier in the window in their careers between the time when they are External recognition knowledgeable enough to take cases and the time when other It was pleasing to see so many FRU volunteers recognised work commitments make it more difficult for them to continue externally for their work:- as volunteers. ■ James Clifford and James Willan were finalists in the Bar Client cases Pro Bono Awards in November 2008.

The change in our ratification procedures has substantially ■ Darius A’Zami, John Crosfill, Naomi Cunningham, Brian increased the numbers of cases we have taken, both in Green, Ashley Hyne and Vicky Lord attended a reception absolute terms and as a proportion of cases referred to us. for MPs in the House of Commons to be recognised as Excluding immigration, we nearly doubled the number of cases among the Attorney General’s pro bono heroes. in which we appeared, from 587 to 1,011, and took nearly 2/3 ■ Keith Gordon was recognised, shortly after the year-end, as of the cases referred to us, rather than just over a half of them:- Chartered Tax Adviser of the year, his pro bono work as a FRU volunteer being mentioned in his citation. Year to Year to 31st March 2009 31st March 2008 ■ The sensitive handling of her client by FRU volunteer Kakoly

% of % of Pandé was one of the most memorable features of the Cases cases Cases cases BBC’s fly-on-the-wall series on the Bar in the autumn of taken referred taken referred 2008.

Employment 492 56 334 49 In a podcast marking National Pro Bono Week in November Social Security 510 73 244 48 2008, Darius A’Zami was interviewed with Michael Napier CBE Criminal Injuries QC, the Attorney General’s pro bono envoy. Compensation 953 975 These were just a few who got noticed. We should not forget 1,011 63 587 49 that many of our volunteers have worked beyond the call of duty and faced personal challenge that they often had not expected or met before. At a meeting convened recently by the Mary Ward Centre, it became clear that there remains a serious shortage of pro bono In the office representation in employment work. With the exception of the None of this work could be done without the office that supports it ELAAS scheme, covering certain appeals at the EAT, the only organisations with the resources to provide any quantity of pro Chief Executive Clive Tulloch bono representation in our fields of activity were ourselves and Legal officers Michael Reed our friends at the Bar Pro Bono Unit. Emma Baldwin

Immigration cases are dealt with differently, and, during the Abou Kamara (from January 2009) year, the separate group of volunteers handling those cases Asma Nizami (from September 2009) have worked more directly with their referral agency, Bail for Administration Sharon Sneddon Immigration Detainees and thus simplified the administration of Alison Picton (to December 2008) those cases. Lauren Glass (from December 2008) Bosede Babalola

13 Trustees’ Report continued

We are hugely grateful to them all. They have had to handle the In addition, we have been helped by many of our friends in huge increase in the caseload. They have also worked on a other ways, particularly: major upgrade of our IT systems, now largely complete:- ■ Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer LLP and Linklaters LLP ■ Our new website has been designed entirely at no charge, for providing us with secondees who take cases during by School Digital, to whom we are deeply grateful. It is now periods of, normally, three months each, working and looks excellent. ■ Fried, Frank, Harris, Shriver & Jacobson (London) LLP ■ Our aging database has also been replaced. This has been who have provided us with secondees continuously since a disruptive project for a longer period than we wished, but September 2007, was eased considerably by the support given pro bono by ■ volunteers who have supported our administration, Brian Green, a volunteer from IT4Communities. ■ School Digital who completely redesigned and rewrote our A third, assistant, legal officer, was recruited on a temporary, website, trial basis in December 2008 to help meet the growth in our ■ Brian Green who provided us with much handholding case-load and in the numbers of volunteers. Funding fortunately behind the scenes in revamping our IT systems, has permitted us to make that post permanent. We are supporting our training objectives by recruiting the post-holder ■ the Bar Council for their consistent support in the running of for one year between finishing their legal studies and starting our office in their building, pupillage or training. ■ the law schools, BPP, the College of Law and the Inns of Court School of Law, who have provided us with venues for Funding our training days and supported their students coming as As always we rely upon donations. A complete list appears on volunteers, or even created a FRU option as a structured pages 27 to 28. In particular, our work would not have been part of their course, possible without financial support from: ■ the Employment Law Bar Association, Judge Vivienne Gay

■ the General Council of the Bar, and Andrew Hochhauser QC who invited our volunteers to their excellent advocacy training, ■ the Inns of Court and ICBET (the Inns of Court and Bar ■ Educational Trust), those who have given up parts of their weekends to speak at our training days: Naomi Cunningham of Outer Temple, ■ Linklaters LLP, who have granted us three years’ funding Omar Nasar of Fried Frank Harris Shriver and Jacobson for the cost of employing our Legal Officer, Social Security, (London) LLP, Sebastian Naughton of 42 Bedford Row, ■ individuals and sets of chambers, paying mainly by standing Deshpal Panesar of Old Square Chambers, Timothy order, Pitt-Payne of 11KBW, Charles Raffin of Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher and Flom (UK) LLP, Desmond Rutledge ■ firms of solicitors and their charities, of Garden Court Chambers, Adam Sandell of Matrix ■ the City Parochial Foundation, who provided funding Chambers (and a former doctor), Holly Stout of 11 KBW towards the cost of employing the chief executive, and Robin White of Old Square Chambers,

■ the Employment Lawyers Association, ■ all the barristers and solicitors who have given their time and expertise to volunteers running cases, ■ the Employment Law Bar Association, and ■ the Bar Pro Bono Unit and our many friends in other charities ■ individuals raising funds for their chosen activities, including our indefatigable cycling silk, John Hendy QC, our five for their support and co-operation and marathon runners and all those who sponsored them. ■ our referral agencies, which are our lifeblood.

We are deeply grateful to them all. We are grateful to them all.

14 Equally, we are grateful to those who took tables at our Financial Report for the Year fundraising dinner on 15 May this year. Our financial results for the year are set out on pages 19 to 26. Most volunteers are at the early stages of their careers. The work This has been an unusually successful year in financial terms. of all of them is at no cost to the Unit. Many have willingly helped on projects outside their core work of representation, manning Voluntary income of £361,941 (2008: £237,410) increased stalls at law schools and recruitment fairs and spreading the markedly. The increase stems primarily from the first of three word among their colleagues. donations from Linklaters LLP to fund our legal officer, Social Security (£35,280), a one-off donation from the Commercial Future Developments Litigator’s Forum of £17,917, the proceeds from the fundraising dinner at Merchant Taylors’ Hall (£51,000; it produced a net After the rapid expansion we have seen over the past 12 profit of £22,843), some catch-up payments from law firms and months, we need a period of consolidation. sets of chambers and £16,590 from the London Legal Walk. We need to improve the support that we can provide to our Our income from training potential volunteers was also up, at volunteers in the office. Further work is needed on our database £39,060 (2008: £25,750). and our revamped website. We need to improve our information Meanwhile our costs increased, mainly because of the systems, both by reviewing our library arrangements and by employment of a third legal officer for part of the year and developing an intranet to hold the guidance our volunteers because we have had to provide for our share of the costs of need. We need to provide more and newer computers, cabling some major refurbishment to the building. and telephones. All this costs time and money, but without it we will not be able to serve the growing number of clients and of volunteers to help them. Reserves Policy It is the policy of the trustees to ensure that the organisation Our branch in Nottingham has started work but needs to will generate adequate free reserves to meet its charitable develop and to increase the awareness of the local community obligations while maintaining adequate reserves to allow of the services which it can offer. We also plan to review the operations to continue if there is a short-term downturn in possibility of providing a similar offering in other major centres. income or increase in expenditure. The trustees consider that There are plans to change the syllabus of the Bar Vocational it would take between 6 and 12 months to identify a material Course (‘BVC’) in 2010. There are indications that these change of this nature and to find the necessary funds or adjust changes may reduce the availability of volunteers who are expenditure, and that therefore reserves of 6 to 12 months’ current BVC students. We plan to work with the Bar Standards expenditure are necessary. Board and the law schools to ensure, so far as possible, that The balance sheet shows total reserves of £244,771 (2008: the educational needs of the Bar can be met without any £159,300) of which £14,573 (2008: £28,355) is restricted. detrimental effect on our potential clients; we do, after all, The restricted reserves principally comprise donations towards provide superb experience and guidance on advocacy in a the costs of our new database, which we are depreciating over relatively sheltered environment. three years. We will not be able to repeat the financial results of the year to Unrestricted reserves are thus £230,198. After deducting 31st March 2009 in the foreseeable future. Our rental costs those unrestricted reserves that are represented by tangible are set to rise, despite the current weakness in the commercial fixed assets and are therefore not readily available to meet property market, and we need to fund the third legal officer and expenditure, amounting to £33,948, free reserves are the infrastructure changes mentioned above. Meantime, some £196,250; they are thus just within the desired range of free £40,000 of our large items of income will not recur in the year reserves, while last year they were below the bottom of the to 31st March 2010. The chief executive will be devoting time desired range of free reserves. to increasing the amount of regular support, for example by standing order, from our friends in the profession.

15 Trustees’ Report continued

Risk Management Trustees’ Responsibilities The management committee regularly considers the major risks Law applicable to charities in England and Wales requires the to which the Unit is exposed, prioritises those risks, reviews the trustees to prepare accounts for each financial year which give extent to which they are and can be managed and, in the light a true and fair view of the charity’s financial activities during the of that work, considers what further management actions are year and of its financial position at the end of the year. required. The trustees oversee and review this work. In preparing accounts giving a true and fair view, the trustees are required to: Organisation ■ The Free Representation Unit is an unincorporated body, select suitable accounting policies and then apply them registered with the Charity Commission. It is governed by a consistently; constitution dated 31 March 2005 and revised on 8 August ■ make judgements and estimates that are reasonable and 2007. The Unit is run by a management committee consisting prudent; of representatives who are elected from the body of volunteers ■ state whether applicable accounting standards and who carry out the work of the Unit, and of the Chief Executive. statements of recommended practice have been followed, The assets of the Unit are vested in the trustees, who are subject to any departures disclosed and explained in the appointed by the Chairman of the Bar Council. The appointment accounts; of a trustee by the Chairman of the Bar Council occurs after ■ prepare the accounts on the going concern basis unless it consultation with the Management Committee of the Unit and is inappropriate to presume that the charity will continue in the General Management Committee of the Bar Council. The operation. trustees are appointed for a period of four years but are eligible for reappointment. Only a member of the Bar or a judge may be The trustees are responsible for keeping accounting records appointed as a trustee. which disclose with reasonable accuracy the financial position of the charity and which enable them to ensure that the accounts Although no new trustees were appointed this year, it is our comply with the Charities Act 1993. They are also responsible policy, on the appointment of a new trustee or a new member of for safeguarding the assets of the charity and hence for taking the management committee, to check that they are conversant reasonable steps for the prevention and detection of fraud and with the relevant provisions of charity law and that they are other irregularities. sufficiently familiar with the workings of FRU. In most cases they are conversant, but, where necessary, briefings are provided. Signed on behalf of the trustees:

The management committee appoints and the Unit employs the chief executive. The chief executive is responsible for the day-to-day management of the Unit and implementing the policies of the management committee. The Unit also John McCaughran QC employs two legal officers, Michael Reed handling employment law and Emma Baldwin handling social security and criminal Senior Trustee injuries compensation, an assistant legal officer, Asma Nizami, Approved by the trustees on 3rd December 2009 supporting them, an office manager, Sharon Sneddon, an administrator, Lauren Glass (replacing Alison Picton who left us in December 2008) and a part-time accountant, Bosede Babalola.

The Unit’s patrons lend their support where it is helpful. They have no role in the governance or management of the Unit.

16 Legal and Administrative Information

Patrons Lady Justice Arden Mrs Justice Black Sir Henry Brooke The Rt Hon Lord Browne-Wilkinson Lord Clarke of Stone-cum-Ebony Lady Justice Hallett The Rt Hon Lord Judge, Lord Chief Justice Lord Phillips of Worth Matravers

Trustees John McCaughran QC Paul Darling QC Jennifer Eady QC Matthias Kelly QC Robin Purchas QC Sean Wilken

Current Management Committee James Medhurst (Chair) From 2 April 2009 Alison Picton (Secretary) Anna Macey (Treasurer) Carolina Carlstedt Rad Kohanzad (To 5th August 2009) Simao Paxi-Cato Abbas Sharif (From 2nd September 2009) Benedict Wray (To 20th August 2009)

Management Committee Barnaby Large (Chair) From 11 March 2008 to 2 April 2009 Rad Kohanzad (Secretary from 8th April 2008) Abou Kamara (Treasurer) Clare Cruise Sean Kennedy Vicky Lord (Secretary to 8th April 2008, then co-opted) Anna Macey James Medhurst Sammy Smallbone (Co-opted)

Chief Executive Clive Tulloch

Office 6th Floor 289-293 High London WC1V 7HZ

Telephone 020 7611 9555 Website www.freerepresentationunit.org.uk

Charity Registration Number 295952

Auditors Buzzacott LLP 12 New Fetter Lane London EC4A 1AG

Bankers Unity Trust Bank plc Nine BrindleyPlace 4 Oozells Square Birmingham B1 2HB

17 Independent Auditors’ Report

Report of the Independent Auditors trustees’ report. We consider the implications for our report if to the Trustees of The Free we become aware of any apparent misstatements or material inconsistencies with the accounts. Our responsibilities do not Representation Unit extend to any other information. We have audited the accounts on pages 19 to 26, which have been prepared under the historical cost convention and the Basis of Opinion accounting policies set out on page 21. We conducted our audit in accordance with International This report is made solely to the charity’s trustees, as a body, in Standards on Auditing (UK and Ireland) issued by the Auditing accordance with Section 43 of the Charities Act 1993 and with Practices Board. An audit includes examination, on a test regulations made under Section 44 of that Act. Our audit work basis, of evidence relevant to the amounts and disclosures in has been undertaken so that we might state to the charity’s the accounts. It also includes an assessment of the significant trustees, as a body, those matters we are required to state to estimates and judgements made by the trustees in the them in an auditors’ report and for no other purpose. To the preparation of the accounts, and of whether the accounting fullest extent permitted by law, we do not accept or assume policies are appropriate to the charity’s circumstances, responsibility to anyone other than the charity’s trustees, as a consistently applied and adequately disclosed. body, for our audit work, for this report, or for the opinions we have formed. We planned and performed our audit so as to obtain all information and explanations which we considered necessary in order to provide us with sufficient evidence to give reasonable Respective Responsibilities of assurance as to whether the accounts are free from material Trustees and Independent Auditors misstatement, whether caused by fraud or other irregularity As described on page 16 you are responsible as trustees for the or error. In forming our opinion we also evaluated the overall preparation of the trustees’ report and accounts in accordance adequacy of the presentation of information in the accounts. with applicable law and United Kingdom Accounting Standards (UK Generally Accepted Accounting Practice). Opinion

We have been appointed as auditors under Section 43 of In our opinion the accounts give a true and fair view, in the Charities Act 1993 and report in accordance with the accordance with UK Generally Accepted Accounting Practice, regulations under Section 44 of that Act. Our responsibility is of the charity’s state of affairs as at 31 March 2009 and of its to audit the accounts in accordance with relevant legal and incoming resources and application of resources in the year regulatory requirements and International Standards on Auditing then ended and have been properly prepared in accordance (UK and Ireland). with the Charities Act 1993.

We report to you our opinion as to whether the accounts give a true and fair view and are properly prepared in accordance with the Charities Act 1993. We also report to you if, in our opinion, the trustees’ report is not consistent with the accounts, if the charity has not kept proper accounting records or if we have Buzzacott LLP not received all the information and explanations we require for Chartered Accountants and Registered Auditors our audit. 12 New Fetter Lane London We read other information in the annual report and consider EC4A 1AG whether it is consistent with the audited accounts. The other information comprises only the Chair’s introduction and the 3rd December 2009

18 Statement of Financial Activities Year to 31 March 2009

Unrestricted Restricted Total Funds Total Funds Funds Funds 2009 2008 Notes £ £ £ £

Incoming resources Incoming resources from generated funds Voluntary income 1 312,051 49,890 361,941 237,410 Investment income 5,837 – 5,837 5,780 Incoming resources from charitable activities 2 59,320 – 59,320 42,085 Other incoming resources 5 – 5 500

Total incoming resources 377,213 49,890 427,103 285,775

Resources expended Costs of generating funds Costs of generating voluntary income 3 30,939 – 30,939 3,365 Charitable activities Legal representation to those in need 4 241,558 63,672 305,230 274,047 Governance costs 5 5.463 – 5,463 5,934

Total resources expended 277,960 63,672 341,632 283,346

Net incoming / (outgoing) resources 99,253 (13,782) 85,471 2,429

Net movement in funds 99,253 (13,782) 85,471 2,429

Balances brought forward at 1 April 2008 130,945 28,355 159,300 156,871

Balances carried forward at 31 March 2009 230,198 14,573 244,771 159,300

There is no difference between the net movement in funds stated above, and the historical cost equivalent.

All of the charity’s activities derived from continuing operations during the above two financial periods.

The charity has no recognised gains and losses other than those shown above and therefore no separate statement of total recognised gains and losses has been presented.

19 Balance Sheet As at 31st March 2009

2009 2009 2008 Notes £ £ £

Fixed Assets Tangible assets 8 34,953 29,077 Current Assets Debtors 32,851 28,650 Prepayments and accrued income 6,946 13,515 Cash at bank and in hand 209,211 156,161

249,008 198,326 Creditors: Amounts falling due within one year 9 (39,190) (68,103)

Net Current Assets 209,818 130,223

Net Assets 244,771 159,300

Represented by: Funds and Reserves Restricted funds 10 14,573 28,355 Unrestricted funds 230,198 130,945

Total Funds 244,771 159,300

Approved by the trustees and signed on their behalf by:

John McCaughran QC, Senior Trustee Paul Darling QC, Trustee

Approved on: 3rd December 2009

20 Principal Accounting Policies 31 March 2009

Basis of Accounting The accounts have been prepared under the historical cost convention and in accordance with the requirements of the Charities Act 1993. Applicable United Kingdom Accounting Standards and the Statement of Recommended Practice “Accounting and Reporting by Charities” (SORP 2005) have been followed in these accounts.

Income Incoming resources are recognised in the period in which the charity is entitled to receipt and the amount can be measured with reasonable certainty. Incoming resources where the donor specifies that the amount is to be spent in a future period is treated as deferred income.

Resources Expended Expenditure is included in the statement of financial activities when incurred and includes attributable VAT which cannot be recovered. The costs of generating funds comprise the cost of fundraising events. The costs of charitable activities comprise expenditure on the charity’s primary charitable purposes as described in the trustees’ report. Such costs include staff and office costs. Governance costs comprise expenditure on strategic management and compliance with constitutional and statutory requirements.

Cash Flow The accounts do not include a cash flow statement because the charity, as a small reporting entity, is exempt from the requirement to prepare such a statement under Financial Reporting Standard 1 ‘Cash flow statements’.

Tangible Fixed Assets All assets costing more than £100 are capitalised.

Depreciation is provided at the following annual rates in order to write off each asset over its estimated useful life:

Leasehold improvements 10% on a straight line basis Office equipment 25% on reducing balance basis Computer equipment 33% on a reducing balance basis Computer software 33% on a straight line basis

Fund Accounting Restricted funds comprise monies raised for, or their use restricted to, a specific purpose, or contributions subject to donor-imposed conditions.

Unrestricted funds comprise those monies which are freely available for application towards achieving any charitable purpose that falls within the charity’s charitable objects.

Leasing Rentals applicable to operating leases where substantially all of the benefits and risks remain with the lessor are charged on a straight line basis over the lease term. The benefit of a rent-free period is amortised in the period from the commencement of the lease to the date of the next rent review.

21 Notes to the accounts Year to 31 March 2009

1 Voluntary Income Unrestricted Restricted Total Total Funds Funds 2009 2008 £ £ £ £

Donations Received: Bar Council 1 61,450 – 61,450 60,045 Inns of Court 48,000 – 48,000 48,000 Linklaters LLP – 35,280 35,280 – Individuals 26,189 – 26,189 20,983 Employment Lawyers Association 2 25,000 – 25,000 25,000 Commercial Litigators’ Forum 17,917 – 17,917 - London Legal Support Trust 16,590 – 16,590 5,500 Freshfields 10,000 – 10,000 - Individuals’ sponsored activities 9,765 – 9,765 9,474 Other firms and Chambers – 8,360 8,360 – City Parochial Foundation 3 – 6,250 6,250 25,000 Inns of Court & Bar Educational Trust 5,000 – 5,000 7,250 Clients 2,031 – 2,031 1,143 Employment Law Bar Association 2,000 – 2,000 – Trusts 1,500 – 1,500 1,500 Other 1,314 – 1,314 – Fundraising activities 35th Anniversary Dinner 50,999 – 50,999 –

277,755 49,890 327,645 203,895

Tax Repayments under Gift Aid 4,376 – 4,376 – Income received under standing order from individuals and sets of chambers 29,920 – 29,920 33,515

312,051 49,890 361,941 237,410

1 The Chairman of the General Council of the Bar (the ‘Bar Council’) appoints the trustees of FRU.

2 In support of the cost of employing the employment caseworker in 2008.

3 In support of the cost of employing the chief executive.

22 2 Incoming Resources from Charitable Activities Unrestricted Restricted Total Total Funds Funds 2009 2008 £ £ £ £

Training of potential volunteers 39,060 – 39,060 25,750 Subscriptions from referral agencies 10,860 – 10,860 11,935 Payments by Law Schools (‘FRU option’) 9,400 – 9,400 4,400

59,320 – 59,320 42,085

3 Costs of Generating Voluntary Income Unrestricted Restricted Total Total Funds Funds 2009 2008 £ £ £ £

35th Anniversary Dinner 29,276 – 29,276 – Other 1,663 – 1,663 3,365

30,939 – 30,939 3,365

4 Charitable Activities – Legal Representation to Those in Need Unrestricted Restricted Total Total Funds Funds 2009 2008 £ £ £ £

Staff costs (Note 6) 108,421 62,667 171,088 155,124 Depreciation (Note 8) 5,182 1,005 6,187 7,056 Premises costs 78,727 – 78,727 66,053 Office running costs 32,606 – 32,606 25,518 Library costs 9,560 – 9,560 10,047 Other costs 7,062 – 7,062 10,249

241,558 63,672 305,230 274,047

5 Governance Costs Unrestricted Restricted Total Total Funds Funds 2009 2008 £ £ £ £

Auditors’ remuneration: Audit 5,463 – 5,463 5, 053 Other ––– 881

5,463 – 5,463 5, 934

23 Notes to the accounts continued

6 Staff Costs and Trustees’ Remuneration 2009 2008 £ £

Staff costs during the year were as follows: Wages and salaries 154,008 139,638 Social security costs 17,080 15,486

171,088 155,124

No employee earned £60,000 or more (including benefits) during the current or previous year.

The average number of employees was 6.5 (2008: 6).

No trustee received any remuneration or expenses in respect of their services as a trustee during the year (2008 - £nil). No trustee had any beneficial interest in any contract with the charity during the year.

7 Taxation The Free Representation Unit is a registered charity and therefore is not liable to income tax or corporation tax on income derived from its charitable activities, as they fall within the various exemptions available to registered charities.

8 Tangible Fixed Assets Computer Leasehold equipment and Office Improvements software Equipment Total £ £ £ £

Cost: At 1 April 2008 34,049 44,486 12,749 91,284 Additions – 12,063 – 12,063

At 31 March 2009 34,049 56,549 12,749 103,347

Depreciation: At 1 April 2008 13,620 41,016 7,571 62,207 Charge for year 3,405 1,774 1,008 6,187

At 31 March 2008 17,025 42,790 8,579 68,394

Net book values: At 31 March 2009 17,024 13,759 4,170 34,953

At 31 March 2008 20,429 3,470 5,178 29,077

24 9 Creditors: Amounts Falling Due Within One Year 2009 2008 £ £

Accruals 33,329 22,619 Social security and other taxes 4,444 4,857 Other creditors 1,417 1,447

39,190 28,923

Deferred income – 39,180

39,190 68,103

10 Restricted funds The funds of the charity include restricted funds comprising the following unexpended balances of donations and grants held on trust to be applied for specific purposes:

At At 1 April Incoming Resources 31 March 2008 resources expended 2009 Purpose £ £ £ £

IT Project 7,218 8,360 (1,005) 14,573 Staff Project – 35,280 (35,280) – Chief executive’s salary 21,137 6,250 (27,387) –

28,355 49,890 (63,672) 14,573

11 Analysis of net assets between funds Unrestricted Restricted Total funds funds 2009 £ £ £

Fund balances at 31 March 2009 are represented by: Fixed assets 33,948 1,005 34,953

Current assets 235,440 13,568 249,008 Creditors: amounts falling due within one year (39,190) – (39,190)

Net current assets 196,250 13,568 209,818

Total net assets 230,198 14,573 244,771

25 Notes to the accounts continued

12 Commitments Lease commitments – operating leases

At 31 March 2009, the charity had annual commitments under non-cancellable operating leases as follows:

2009 2008 £ £

Operating leases which expire: After five years 53,803 39,285

The operating lease charge for the year was £39,285 (2008 - £38,842). This is stated net of the amortisation of the benefit of the initial rent-free period over the period up to the date of the first rent review which will take effect from 29th March 2009. The lease provides that the rent may be increased upwards only if market rents are higher. At the time of writing, the revised rent which would take effect from that date had not been agreed.

26 Donors

We are most grateful to all our donors, whether they pay us in cash or help us in less measurable ways. The list set out below is only of those who have made cash donations: a list of some of those who have helped in other ways is set out on page 14.

Note that some of our records are incomplete or not up to date. Would any donor whose name is incorrectly shown or omitted, or who wishes to be anonymous in future years, please accept our apologies and correct our records by speaking to our office manager, Sharon Sneddon (020 7611 9555; [email protected]).

The General Council of the Bar Edwin Glasgow QC Michael Tappin The Golden Bottle Trust O Ticciati Linklaters LLP Sir Robin Jacob Daniel Toledano QC GRJ Mansfield QC B Weatherill QC The Commercial Litigators’ Forum LE Persey QC EA Weaver The Employment Lawyers Association VA Ramsey TEB Weitzman The London Legal Support Trust N Vineall QC AJ Zacaroli QC

The Honourable Society of Gray’s Inn Richard Adkins QC AMF Allan The Honourable Society of the Chris Ashworth RGB Allen QC AW Baker QC Brian Altman QC The Honourable Society of TD Brenton QC MD Barca Lincoln’s Inn James W Burton SN Barwise QC The Honourable Society of the CSC Clarke S Beard K Coonan QC AJ Beltrami QC CA Critchlow Lord Bingham of Cornhill KG City Parochial Foundation Clare Cruise HM Boggis-Rolfe Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer LLP SHM Denney QC AR Boswood Julia Dias QC Clinton Bouboul and Mr SA Durrant LLP RM Englehart QC ML Brent The Inns of Court and Bar DA Foxton QC MJ Brindle QC Educational Trust EMG Grey Lord Browne-Wilkinson A Hacking QC Sir Robert Carnwath 3-4 South Square PJ Harrison QC P Carter QC NA Jefford RC Clay Commercial Bar Association J Johnson PR Cowell The authors of Employment Tribunal SCW Kenny QC K Davidson Claims, Naomi Cunningham and Sir Sydney Kentridge QC JM Dingeman QC Michael Reed Gerard Lagerberg EL Dixon Employment Law Bar Association RJ Latham M Douglas QC Five Raymond Buildings Robert L Martin QC PH Draffan JC Mathew Stuart Driver QC JD Matthews M Egan QC 12 King’s Bench Walk John McCaughran QC RJ Evans 3 Verulam Buildings Sir John Mummery AML Firth M Black QC A Nissen QC Vernon Flynn QC M Boyce and Dwayne A Jones I Pennicott QC H Gower Eversheds LLP LE Persey QC R Gray Sean Kennedy RNM Price RA Hantusch 1 Anonymous donor His Honour Judge Charles Purle QC JM Heal Lady AL Rippon J Hirst QC 7 Bedford Row MO Rodger QC C Hutton AVB Bartlett QC M Rowland SJ Irwin Sir Henry Brooke AJ Short PAB Jackson QC HL Evans C Smith QC ES Jones QC

27 Donors continued

SL Kovats P Andrews LB Mehta Elisabeth Laing QC HW Baker EJW Mellor QC Sir Brian Langstaff PL Baxendale QC PH Milmo QC GP Lazarus RVME Behar C Moger NT Leviseur KS Bishop K Monaghan D Lewis E Blackburn QC MD Mott J Litton JA Blair-Gould CAC Murfitt S Lofthouse QC JG Boal AL Myerson N M Lowe QC JH Boney O Ogunfowora AJ Lydiard QC DJ Brennan QC JA Orford D McCarthy DS Brennan AG Perkins F McCredie K Briand F Pirie RJ McGregor-Johnson JB Brodie DC Pitman J Middleburgh HJ Byrt Clinton Pitter GS Murdoch N Capocefalo RM Planters P Naughton QC G Connor PRK Prescott QC GR Newey QC J Crosfill JMG Roberts J Nicholls QC T Dumont SR Roberts JM Nicholson QC Susan Elias Adam Sandell EH Ovey J Evans-Tovey SE Shay David Owen GS Eyre R Singh Mr Justice Penry-Davey B Finucane J Small QC C Quigley QC DP Friedman QC J Storey QC FMH Randolph Sir William Gage JL Stratford DJ Richardson CR George QC AHW Sutcliffe QC BG Richmond QC PL Gibson RS Symonds NF Riddle TJ Goudie QC His Honour Judge HC Tayler GRG Roots QC JG Grenfell QC A Temple QC JJ Russell QC ME Heywood SB Thomas CS Samek P A Hitchcock WFC Thomas MV Seaward A Hughes QC RWR Thompson QC AM Silverleaf QC G Huston SJ Thorley QC SL Singleton QC NJ Inglis-Jones QC NK Tozzi RC Southwell M James Esq WSP Trower QC CP Sydenham SE Kramer HJM Tucker KM Thirlwall QC A Laranjeiro HW Turcan P Thompson N Le Poidevin CS Vajda QC GC Vos QC TAC Leech SM Walker A Whitfield QC D Lovell-Pank QC GDA Weddell H Williams QC EMC Lowry CS Welchman NMH Williams QC HM MacGregor His Honour Judge JS Wiggs C Wood R Malcolm AF Wilkie C Manzoni MM Wood BA Marder MF Young

28 RF64212 Printed by Royle Financial Print 6th Floor 289-293 High Holborn London WC1V 7HZ

Tel: 020 7611 9555 www.freerepresentationunit.org.uk Charity number 295952