Skip to main content

Administrative Justice: A Demosprudential Fabric

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
  • 239 Accesses

Abstract

This chapter expands the focus from the ombud to the wider administrative justice fabric and considers how the values of community, network and openness can contribute to a form of demosprudence that helps realise relational human rights in the small places of daily life. The importance of looking, listening and even ‘touching’ in that endeavour is acknowledged. The chapter reflects on the demosprudential implications for the practice of mediation, of tribunals and of public inquiries. It takes special educational needs as a case study in which the potential for interwoven networks between different administrative justice institutions is especially apparent. The chapter also considers the opportunities and challenges posed by technological innovation, digital design and the emergence of ‘super-complaints’.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.

Buying options

Chapter
USD   29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD   44.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Hardcover Book
USD   59.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Learn about institutional subscriptions

References

  • Allen, D. (2004). Talking to Strangers: Anxieties of Citizenship since Brown v. Board of Education. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Baiocchi, G., & Ganuza, E. (2017). Popular Democracy. Blog debate on Centre for Urban Research on Austerity.

    Google Scholar 

  • Blom-Cooper, L. (2017). Public Inquiries: Wrong Route on Bloody Sunday. Oxford: Hart Bloomsbury.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bondy, V., & Doyle, M. (2011). Mediation in Judicial Review: A Practical Handbook for Lawyers. London: Public Law Project.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bondy, V., Doyle, M., & Reid, V. (2005). Mediation and Judicial Review—Mind the Research Gap. Judicial Review, 10(3), 220–226.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bush, R. A. B., & Folger, J. P. (2005). The Promise of Mediation: The Transformative Approach to Conflict. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

    Google Scholar 

  • Centre for Effective Dispute Resolution (CEDR). (2003). ADR for Public Authorities: A Guide for Managers. London: CEDR.

    Google Scholar 

  • Centre for Effective Dispute Resolution (CEDR). (2015). Setting Up and Running a Public Inquiry: Guidance for Chairs and Commissioning Bodies. London: CEDR.

    Google Scholar 

  • Committee for Administrative Justice and Tribunals Wales (CAJTW). (2016). Legacy Report. Cardiff: Welsh Assembly.

    Google Scholar 

  • Department for Education. (2018). Statements of SEN and EHC Plans, England, SFR May 2018. Retrieved February 27, 2019, from https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/709590/Statements_of_SEN_and_EHC_plans_England_2018_Main_Text.pdf

  • Design Council. (2004). Touching the State: What Does It Mean to Be a Citizen in the 21st Century? London: Design Council and Institute for Public Policy Research.

    Google Scholar 

  • Doyle, M., Bondy, V., & Hirst, C. (2014). The Use of Informal Resolution Approaches by Ombudsmen in the UK and Ireland: A Mapping Study. London: Nuffield Foundation.

    Google Scholar 

  • Drewry, G. (2009). The Judicialisation of ‘Administrative’ Tribunals in the UK: From Hewart to Legatt. Transylvanian Review of Administrative Sciences, 28, 45–64.

    Google Scholar 

  • Enterkin, J., & Sefton, M. (2006). A Report on the Exeter Small Claims Mediation Pilot (DCA Research Series 10/06). London: Department for Constitutional Affairs.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fredman, S. (2008). Human Rights Transformed: Positive Rights and Positive Duties. Oxford: OUP.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Genn, H., et al. (2007). Twisting Arms: Court Referred and Court Linked Mediation Under Judicial Pressure (Research Series 1/07). London: Ministry of Justice.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gilad, S. (2008). Accountability or Expectations Management? The Role of the Ombudsman in Financial Regulation. Law & Policy, 30(2), 227–253.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Harlow, C., & Rawlings, R. (1997). Law and Administration (2nd ed.). London: Butterworths.

    Google Scholar 

  • Harris, N. (2018). Autonomy, Rights and Children with Special Needs: A New Paradigm? Working Paper 2. Legislative and Policy Developments in Special Educational Needs in England and Additional Support Needs in Scotland: Advancing Children and Young People’s Rights. Edinburgh and Manchester: Universities of Edinburgh and Manchester.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hay, C., McKenna, K., & Buck, T. (2010). Evaluation of Early Neutral Evaluation Alternative Dispute Resolution in the Social Security and Child Support Tribunal (Ministry of Justice Research Series 2/10). London: Ministry of Justice.

    Google Scholar 

  • Herring, J. (2017). Compassion, Ethics of Care and Legal Rights. International Journal of Law in Context, 13(2), 158–171.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • King, M. (2018). Speech to the Annual Conference of the Ombudsman Association. Edinburgh.

    Google Scholar 

  • Local Government Ombudsman (LGO). (2014). Special Educational Needs: Preparing for the Future. London: LGO.

    Google Scholar 

  • Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman (LGSCO). (2017). Education, Health and Care Plans: Our First 100 Investigations. London: LGSCO.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mae Architects. (2014). Places for Strangers: Ideas for Places, People and the City (S. Bose, Ed.). Zurich: Park Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Manzini, E. (2015). Design, When Everybody Designs: An Introduction to Design for Social Innovation. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Menkel-Meadow, C. (2002). When Litigation is Not the Only Way: Consensus Building and Mediation as Public Interest Lawyering. Washington University Journal of Law and Policy, 10, 37–62.

    Google Scholar 

  • Menkel-Meadow, C. (2016). Mediation and Its Applications for Good Decision-Making and Dispute Resolution (K. U. Leuven, Ed.). Cambridge: Intersentia Ltd.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ministry of Justice. (2017). SEND Appeal Rates 2014–2017. SEND Tribunal Tables: Statistics on the Appeal Rate to the SEND Tribunal.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mulcahy, L. (2011). Legal Architecture: Justice, Due Process and the Place of Law. London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • National Audit Office. (2018). Handling of the Windrush Situation. HC 1622 Session 2017–2019. London: National Audit Office.

    Google Scholar 

  • Office of the Independent Adjudicator (OIA). (2013). Mediation—A Guide for Students. Reading: OIA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pearce, B., & Stubbs, M. (2000). The Role of Mediation in the Settlement of Planning Disputes at Appeal: The Debate and Research Agenda. Environment and Planning, 32, 1335–1358.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pritchard, H. (2017). Tribunal Reform in Wales under the Wales Act 2017. UK Administrative Justice Institute (UKAJI) blog.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ryder, E. (2018). The Modernisation of Tribunals 2018: A Report by the Senior President of Tribunals. London: HMCTS.

    Google Scholar 

  • Scottish Government. (2009). A Guide to the Use of Mediation in the Planning System in Scotland. Edinburgh: Scottish Government.

    Google Scholar 

  • Scraton, P. (2013). The Legacy of Hillsborough: liberating Truth, Challenging Power. Race & Class, 55(2), 1–27.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sennett, R. (2018). Building and Dwelling. London: Allen Lane.

    Google Scholar 

  • Thomas, R., & Tomlinson, J. (2016). Current Issues in Administrative Justice: Examining Administrative Review, Better Initial Decisions, and Tribunal Reform. Sheffield and Manchester: Universities of Sheffield and Manchester.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tomlinson, J., & Thomas, R. (2018). The Digitalisation of Tribunals: What We Know and What We Need to Know. London: Public Law Project and UK Administrative Justice Institute.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Margaret Doyle .

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2020 The Author(s)

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Doyle, M., O’Brien, N. (2020). Administrative Justice: A Demosprudential Fabric. In: Reimagining Administrative Justice. Palgrave Pivot, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-21388-6_7

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics