What single reform of the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman would best serve the interests of administrative justice?
The term administrative justice refers to an overall system of specialised bodies that attempt to resolve disputes and complaints made between members of the public and public bodies, such as, the NHS, UK government departments and public organisations like the DVLA, the job centre and the home office. These specialised bodies and systems range from appeal tribunals to parliamentary and health service ombudsman and judicial review, which all work as ways to challenge and seek redress from official decisions made by said public bodies . Though the administrative justice system, particularly the ombudsman service,
…show more content…
The Collcutt report (2000) , which explored whether the ombudsman service was in the best interest of the public, found an ‘almost universal dissatisfaction’ with the MP filter and concluded that it should be abolished. The House of Commons Public Administration Select Committee (PASC) report also takes the exact opinion for the removal of the filter in the basis that its removal will best serve administrative justice as it will give all members of the public an equal access to administrative justice. The report very firmly argues that the requirement not only disempowers citizens but also obstructs access to their rights and deters people from making complaints. The arguments made in the report were very compelling particularly due to the personal accounts from actual members of the public and the PSHO in office at the …show more content…
This does not automatically call for the removal of the MP filter but rather a necessary improvement, which the dual track system allows, so much so that the public sector ombudsmen in England and Wales declared that the proposal of a dual track system represented an ‘acceptable compromise’ , meaning this reform would be best as it allows MP’s to maintain their role in dealing with their constituency but also gives the public fair access to an independent and impartial
The duties of a police officer are to ensure that there is maintenance of public peace and order. In order to perform their duties and obligations they require certain powers, authority in order to perform their duties and this extends the power to arrest. This paper focuses on the decision of the court in DPP v Carr, the amendments on Law Enforcement (Powers and Responsibilities) Act (LEPRA) section 99 and a critical evaluation of statements made by Sentas and Cowdery.
Hall, Daniel E. Administrative Law: Bureaucracy in a Democracy. 5th ed. Upper Saddle River: Prentice Hall, 2012. Print.
If the parties in our governmental system would openly discuss about the difference in positions and in point of views within the groups in realizing these controversies will minimize the unnecessary troubles greatly. Another possibility of improvement would be following the great examples of other countries with the Westminster governance system. For example, in countries like Australia and New Zealand have already a well-established party discipline rules that are less strict than the ones in Canada and way more effective than the ones we have. In an article, it was said that” Australian parties are considerably more discipline than those in the UK an even those in Canada, although the degree of discipline in the latter has been the subject of much critical comment. Parliamentary votes in the UK are subject to varying degrees of party discipline, with the most rigid being the so-called” three-line whip’ votes. Neither Australia nor Canada has such gradations. In New Zealand party discipline has increased under its mixed Member proportional (MMP) electoral system and, unless party leaders have agreed to a conscience vote, standing orders require a party vote to be taken rather than individuals casting their votes in the chamber. “(Sawer, Abjorensen and Larkin
Proportional representation is almost always acknowledged as the fairest electoral system. With this in mind, many still reject a mixed member proportional system. Critics argue that the current method has produced a stable and effective government, while MMP would create an ineffective government. Wiseman feels that since Canada has been consistently stable, our electoral system does not need to be changed. Hiemstra and Jansen disagree with the plurality system that is currently in place for it does not produce fair representation and devalues citizen’s votes. Canadians must make a choice between the value of effectiveness and the values of justice and equity. Although a switch is not anticipated in the near future, Canadian citizens can hope that it is at least in the minds of many voters and on the discussion list of the government.
Kennedy, R (ed.) 2008, Allied Health Professionals and the Law, The Federation Press, Sydney, p. 9-22.
The authors describe some of the advantages of a MMP system: “Mixed electoral systems provide fairly proportional outcomes, maintain the geographic link between constituents and members, provide for greater choice, and allow the opportunity for smaller parties to represented in Parliament” (p. 11). This system works better than the current FPTP or plurality system, because it allows citizen’s a second opportunity to have a voice. This is important because it would allow our minority groups to have a greater political influence. As mentioned earlier, in the current system all votes for candidates who lost, were insignificant to the election outcome. The authors explain: “Only those votes that go to the eventual winner count towards electing a representative, which may discourage people from voting or promote disaffection with the system” (p. 3). Alternatively, the MMP system allows citizen’s a second opportunity to elect party members in order to proportionally represent the popular
Throughout the years there has been limitless legal cases presented to the court systems. All cases are not the same. Some cases vary from decisions that are made by a single judge, while other cases decisions are made by a jury. As cases are presented they typically start off as disputes, misunderstandings, or failure to comply among other things. It is possible to settle some cases outside of the courts, but that does require understanding and cooperation by all parties involved. However, for those that are not so willing to settle out of court, they eventually visit the court system. The court system is not in existence to cause humiliation for anyone, but more so to offer a helping hand from a legal prospective. At the same time, the legal system is not to be abuse. or misused either.
...f] Queensland: Queensland Law Reform Commission. pp. 2 - 20. Available through: QLD Government http://www.qlrc.qld.gov.au/wpapers/wp37.pdf [Accessed: 2 Mar 2014].
To provide the legal powers and make people aware of the offences in relation to public health and consumers interest
A tribunal is an institution which has the power or authority to judge, adjudicate and then providing a verdict, depending on a claim or a dispute. Tribunals are generally government bodies which do not carry the same jurisdictions as the courts. The UK system of tribunals is a unified system with delegated judicial authority for the purpose of regulatory supervision and appeals. This a national administrative justice structure for tribunals within the United Kingdom.
This general body is in charge of making sure all health and safety regulations are in place and are being followed in places of work and educational environments around the UK. They ultimately oversee the wellbeing of anybody at their occupational or educational setting and are able to
In order to have an organizations’ internal operations to run as efficient as possible, the workplace environment created by management must be able to work alongside with their employees in order to produce a satisfied, productive, and motivated workforce that will work in the firms’ best interests and ultimately maximizes profits. It is common to have conflicting perspectives amongst the employees and employers regarding the interpretation, application or administration of a binding collective agreement. If a satisfactory settlement between the two parties cannot come to an effective agreement through internal practices, the grievance arbitration system is the primary process for resolving disputes in unionized workplaces. Arbitrators can
... with the aggrieved worker and representative meeting with the supervisor involved, followed by an appeal system with strict time limits and ultimately ending in binding arbitration. When management and the union cannot resolve a grievance submitted by a union, the union must decide whether to proceed to the final step of the grievance procedure: arbitration. Arbitration is an adversary proceeding like a trial in court. An arbitrator’s function is usually to interpret the collective bargaining agreement between the parties, not to apply his or her standards of what is right in a given situation. The courts have sought to compel labour and management to a peaceful resolution of grievances through arbitration. The Supreme Court has given support to the arbitration process in a series of decisions, and judicial deferral to arbitration has become a basic tenet of national labour policy.
Judicial review seeks to enforce and uphold constitutional doctrines which govern the UK’s uncodified constitution by scrutinising administrative action. One constitutional function of judicial review is to enforce the rule of law. It can be argued, in defining the rule of law as “negative value...designed to minimised the harm to freedom and dignity which the law may cause in its pursuit of its goals” Joseph Raz characterised judicial review. The principle of which states the executive is to be ruled by the law and subject to it.
However, there are government figures that work for the public to try and reduce the risks of illness and disease by advising and improving on standards; they also have legal authority to prosecute and enforce the law, on factors detrimental to public health and mortality. The Environmental Health Officer works within the local authorities and is responsible to investigate all complaints and incidents concerning issues such as: pollution (waste and noise); food poisoning; accidents at work. They carry out quality controls and ensure inspections are preventing any crisis from occurring. The Health and Safety Executive (HSE):