Administrative Justice and Tribunals Council ... - Consultation Hub

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Sent to: Public Bodies Bill Team Ministry of Justice Post point 318 102 Petty France London SW1H 9AJ Tel: 020 3334 6168 Fax: 020 3334 6452 Email: PBB. Consultationju5ticeg5i gov. uk 3
Sirius Avernish Kyle. IV40 8EQ Public Bodies Bill Team Ministry of Justice PBB.Consultation@justice.gsi.gov.uk Tel. 01599 555208 nlmackinnon@avernish.co.uk 10 October 2011 Dear Sir/madam Public Bodies Bill: Proposed abolition of AJTC I write in regard of the proposal to abolish the Administrative Justice and Tribunals Council. I am a serving head teacher but write in a private capacity, though the reasons causing me to write arose in my professional duties. I consider that my public and personal reputation as a head teacher was impugned by a process quite contrary to the established principles of administrative justice in the UK, yet with no mechanism of redress through appropriate mechanisms of complaint, appeal, or due tribunal functions of evidential reckoning in the formulation of the original statements. I oppose the abolition of this body. This is because it is an essential and necessary bulwark to the fragile state of administrative justice in the UK. Kenneth Clark MP has expressed the view that abolition may now occur since he regards that the principles of administrative justice are well embedded within the framework of the judicial procedures of the United Kingdom. I do not regard this to be the case. This is particularly with regard to the procedures of certain of the bodies established or operating under the devolved administration of Scotland after the establishment of the Scottish Parliament. I found the recent report AJTC report Right First Time of June 2011 to be a groundbreaking report upholding principles of administrative justice in public services complaints handling which in their operation are close to defunct. Such innovative and groundbreaking work should not be allowed to fold. Its conclusions were affirmed by the Crerar review reports (2007) and Sinclair reports (2008) in Scotland. My own experience shows that despite these laudable moves to make apparent the woeful state of judicial process in complaints handling and the accountability processes of regulatory agencies that no mechanisms have been put in place to rectify these. Worst of all is the public pretence of the opposite, for instance by both the Scottish school inspectorate and the Scottish Public Services Ombudsman, and by the Scottish Government itself. In regard of a case which I brought to the Scottish Public Services Ombudsman I wrote a report in January 2011 Accountability and complaint handling of Scotland’s public services’ regulators and the role of the Scottish Public Services Ombudsman – The wider import of the handling and outcome of SPSO case 200800985 which I enclose. This outlines the nature of the problem. I could supply the original complaint if required. Two central points are commenting on practice without observing it, and demolishing an individual’s professional standing by innuendo and pejorative remarks but providing no substantive claims, and no opportunity to test or openly respond to a charge, for a charge is never put. Right of complaint and appeal is denied. I have proof of this in mine and other cases. 1
Page 1 and 2: Public Bodies Bill: reforming the p
Page 3 and 4: Stakeholders notified of the public
Page 5 and 6: Victim Support Victims’ Voice Voi
Page 7 and 8: in the level of service ( acknowled
Page 9 and 10: MoJ can take over reporting process
Page 11 and 12: The best way of saving the public m
Page 13 and 14: even if the functions could be disc
Page 15 and 16: as its Deputy Chairman, that it has
Page 17 and 18: We would be pleased to share a late
Page 19 and 20: Question 2: Do you believe that the
Page 21: 2 The future for administrative jus
Page 25 and 26: Clovers 61 Chantry View Road Guildf
Page 27 and 28: ackground of a need to make massive
Page 29 and 30: Runaire a' Chaibineit airson Cearta
Page 31 and 32: Mencap’s chief concerns about the
Page 33 and 34: Section 2: Specific and detailed co
Page 35 and 36: the future. Mencap believes that th
Page 37 and 38: overlooked or abandoned altogether.
Page 39 and 40: functioning of these panels. In the
Page 41 and 42: Equally, if the AJTC continues in i
Page 43 and 44: Question 3. Do the proposals have a
Page 45 and 46: Question 10. What are your views on
Page 47 and 48: Question 20. What are your views on
Page 50 and 51: Providing high-quality, flexible se
Page 52 and 53: fail El!) Public Bodies Bill Team M
Page 54 and 55: 2 those who have developed good pra
Page 56 and 57: Consultation on reforms proposed in
Page 58 and 59: Consultation on reforms proposed in
Page 60 and 61: About Consumer Focus Scotland Consu
Page 62 and 63: 6. It appears from the consultation
Page 64 and 65: powers, skills and knowledge in pla
Page 66 and 67: Consumer Focus Scotland Royal Excha
Page 68 and 69: Question 2: Do you believe that the
Page 70 and 71: The principal function of the Magis
Page 72 and 73:
The National Archives Question 19:
Page 74:
future handling of functions as set
Page 77 and 78:
Sir Robert Carnwath SENIOR PRESIDEN
Page 79:
The London EASI Group consider this
Page 85 and 86:
Question 2. Do you believe that the
Page 87 and 88:
Question 11. Do you believe that th
Page 89 and 90:
Question 20. What are your views on
Page 91 and 92:
ANNEX A - RESPONSE TO CONSULTATION
Page 93 and 94:
new Youth Justice Division. It will
Page 95 and 96:
To understand the youth justice sys
Page 97 and 98:
Introduction 1. JUSTICE is an indep
Page 99 and 100:
8. Secondly and substantively, we d
Page 101 and 102:
The Youth Justice Board Q23. What a
show all

Administrative Justice and Tribunals Council ... - Consultation Hub

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?