The High Court has dismissed a challenge by an imprisoned man to the suspension of his State Pension (Contributory) while he is in prison.
In a judgment delivered on 29 April 2016, Mr Justice Binchy rejected claims that section 249(1) of the Social Welfare (Consolidation) Act 2005 was unconstitutional or incompatible with the European Convention on Human Rights. The provision disqualifies a person from receiving certain social welfare benefits while imprisoned or detained in legal custody.
The plaintiff, identified in the judgment only as P.C., had qualified for the pension and received it until shortly before his 2011 conviction. He was sentenced to concurrent prison terms for sexual assault and rape offences committed against a family member. The judgment records that he was serving his sentence when the proceedings were heard. The court was told his pension would resume on release.
P.C. argued that losing the pension was an additional punishment imposed without a court hearing, interfered with his property rights and treated him less favourably than prisoners with private or other pensions. He also said the loss left him with very little money for personal items and clothing in prison. The defendants argued that the pension was a statutory benefit, not an accrued property right, and that the rule temporarily withheld payments while the State met a prisoner’s basic needs.
The judge found that PRSI contributions did not give rise to a property right in the pension under the Constitution or the Convention. He said eligibility rules for social welfare benefits must still have a rational, objective basis and pursue a legitimate aim. In his assessment, withholding the pension during imprisonment was justified because the State was maintaining the prisoner and payment could otherwise allow him to accumulate a lump sum. The pension resumed on release.
The court also held that the suspension was not a punishment or an extra-judicial sentence. It rejected the discrimination claim, finding that private pensions and the State Pension (Contributory) were not comparable for this purpose, and that the rule applied to those otherwise eligible for the state benefit. The judge further found no breach of the Convention provisions relied on, including those concerning degrading treatment, liberty, fair hearings and private life.
The judgment acknowledged that P.C. experienced financial hardship, but found that his complaints about limited spending money and clothing did not establish a breach of his rights. The court dismissed the proceedings. It did not order the defendants to pay the pension during imprisonment or award damages.