Advertisement

Administrative Justice: A Demosprudential Fabric

  • Margaret DoyleEmail author
  • Nick O’Brien
Chapter

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’.

Keywords

Mediation Tribunals Public inquiries Super-complaints Digitalisation Participation Recognition 

References

  1. Allen, D. (2004). Talking to Strangers: Anxieties of Citizenship since Brown v. Board of Education. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Baiocchi, G., & Ganuza, E. (2017). Popular Democracy. Blog debate on Centre for Urban Research on Austerity.Google Scholar
  3. Blom-Cooper, L. (2017). Public Inquiries: Wrong Route on Bloody Sunday. Oxford: Hart Bloomsbury.Google Scholar
  4. Bondy, V., & Doyle, M. (2011). Mediation in Judicial Review: A Practical Handbook for Lawyers. London: Public Law Project.Google Scholar
  5. Bondy, V., Doyle, M., & Reid, V. (2005). Mediation and Judicial Review—Mind the Research Gap. Judicial Review, 10(3), 220–226.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bush, R. A. B., & Folger, J. P. (2005). The Promise of Mediation: The Transformative Approach to Conflict. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
  7. Centre for Effective Dispute Resolution (CEDR). (2003). ADR for Public Authorities: A Guide for Managers. London: CEDR.Google Scholar
  8. Centre for Effective Dispute Resolution (CEDR). (2015). Setting Up and Running a Public Inquiry: Guidance for Chairs and Commissioning Bodies. London: CEDR.Google Scholar
  9. Committee for Administrative Justice and Tribunals Wales (CAJTW). (2016). Legacy Report. Cardiff: Welsh Assembly.Google Scholar
  10. 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
  11. 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
  12. 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
  13. 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
  14. 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
  15. Fredman, S. (2008). Human Rights Transformed: Positive Rights and Positive Duties. Oxford: OUP.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 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
  17. Gilad, S. (2008). Accountability or Expectations Management? The Role of the Ombudsman in Financial Regulation. Law & Policy, 30(2), 227–253.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Harlow, C., & Rawlings, R. (1997). Law and Administration (2nd ed.). London: Butterworths.Google Scholar
  19. 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
  20. 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
  21. Herring, J. (2017). Compassion, Ethics of Care and Legal Rights. International Journal of Law in Context, 13(2), 158–171.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. King, M. (2018). Speech to the Annual Conference of the Ombudsman Association. Edinburgh.Google Scholar
  23. Local Government Ombudsman (LGO). (2014). Special Educational Needs: Preparing for the Future. London: LGO.Google Scholar
  24. Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman (LGSCO). (2017). Education, Health and Care Plans: Our First 100 Investigations. London: LGSCO.Google Scholar
  25. Mae Architects. (2014). Places for Strangers: Ideas for Places, People and the City (S. Bose, Ed.). Zurich: Park Books.Google Scholar
  26. Manzini, E. (2015). Design, When Everybody Designs: An Introduction to Design for Social Innovation. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  27. 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
  28. Menkel-Meadow, C. (2016). Mediation and Its Applications for Good Decision-Making and Dispute Resolution (K. U. Leuven, Ed.). Cambridge: Intersentia Ltd.Google Scholar
  29. Ministry of Justice. (2017). SEND Appeal Rates 2014–2017. SEND Tribunal Tables: Statistics on the Appeal Rate to the SEND Tribunal.Google Scholar
  30. Mulcahy, L. (2011). Legal Architecture: Justice, Due Process and the Place of Law. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  31. National Audit Office. (2018). Handling of the Windrush Situation. HC 1622 Session 2017–2019. London: National Audit Office.Google Scholar
  32. Office of the Independent Adjudicator (OIA). (2013). Mediation—A Guide for Students. Reading: OIA.Google Scholar
  33. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Pritchard, H. (2017). Tribunal Reform in Wales under the Wales Act 2017. UK Administrative Justice Institute (UKAJI) blog.Google Scholar
  35. Ryder, E. (2018). The Modernisation of Tribunals 2018: A Report by the Senior President of Tribunals. London: HMCTS.Google Scholar
  36. Scottish Government. (2009). A Guide to the Use of Mediation in the Planning System in Scotland. Edinburgh: Scottish Government.Google Scholar
  37. Scraton, P. (2013). The Legacy of Hillsborough: liberating Truth, Challenging Power. Race & Class, 55(2), 1–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Sennett, R. (2018). Building and Dwelling. London: Allen Lane.Google Scholar
  39. 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
  40. 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

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2020

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University of EssexLondonUK
  2. 2.University of LiverpoolStockportUK

Personalised recommendations