Sarah Nason

Administrative justice in Wales: a new egalitarianism?

Abstract Administrative justice systems are under a variety of pressures, in particular austerity-inspired civil justice reform. I argue that such pressures do not necessitate the decline of administrative justice, and that a developing Welsh model has cross-jurisdictional appeal, especially to legal orders currently lacking a relevant organisational centre and joined-up approach. I examine the efficacy of existing conceptions of administrative justice and delineate a developing Welsh approach grounded in egalitarian principles. The nascent Welsh model emphasises reforming administrative justice hierarchies so that they work harmoniously with regulatory and value-promoting parts of the system, focusing on user perspectives and tackling the risks of less transparent forms of bureaucratic decision-making.

Justice Outside London? Five Years of “Regional” Administrative Courts

4. Figure 1 shows the total number of Receipts to the Administrative Court in each year of the research. Receipts include applications for judicial review, statutory appeals and applications, certain extradition appeals, appeals by way of case stated, and other miscellaneous administrative claims. The total number of Receipts was particularly high in 2009/10 as the Administrative Court was still responsible for determining a particular class of statutory application, namely asylum and immigration “Reconsiderations” under s. 103A of the Nationality Immigration and Asylum Act 2002. These claims have now effectively been “transferred” to the tribunal system.

The Regionalisation of Judicial Review: Constitutional Authority, Access to Justice and Specialisation of Legal Services in Public Law

Since April 2009 judicial reviews may be dealt with at regional centres and in Cardiff. This change significantly relaxed the hitherto highly centralised system of judicial review in England and Wales. The main aims were to improve access to public law redress by enabling cases to be listed and heard at the most appropriate regional location. Despite recognition of the need to improve regional access, fears exist that this reform will threaten the standing and authority of judicial review in this jurisdiction; that it will contribute to a fragmentation of judicial review and, in the regions, reduce the quality of public law adjudication, legal advice and representation. Drawing on an empirical study on the regional use of judicial review, this paper assesses these matters and considers the early effects of regionalisation on access to judicial review and the development of regional markets for legal services in public law.

Regionalisation of the Administrative Court and Access to Justice

2. In 2006, a Judicial Working Group was given the task2 of considering the deployment of Lord Justices of Appeal and High Court judges outside London.3 Its remit was not specifically to address the severe geographical imbalance and London-centricty of administrative law actions, nor was it to investigate measures for combating the interminable delays experienced by the Administrative Court in London. Nevertheless, the final proposals to decentralise the Administrative Court may have a significant effect in relation to both these important matters.

Regionalisation of the Administrative Court

1. On 21 April 2009, four1 new regional centres of the Administrative Court will open for business. Located in Cardiff, Birmingham, Manchester and Leeds, the centres are the brainchild of a 2007 Judicial Working Group (“the Group”) tasked to consider the administration of justice outside of London. The Group’s final report, Justice Outside London (“the Report”), advocated regionalisation on the grounds of access to justice. It noted (para. 48):

Multiculturalism, Human Rights, and Proportionality

Shambo was the temple bullock of a Hindu monastery and temple in Carmarthenshire that was operated by the Community of the Many Names of God. He became a minor celebrity when the Court of Appeal held in R (Suryananda) v Welsh Ministers1 that his slaughter, despite being an interference with the Community’s religious beliefs, was justified on public health grounds. However, the media furore over the case was about much more than a clash between religious beliefs and public health policies. It was symptomatic of underlying tensions between different cultures, tensions that are becoming increasingly pronounced in our current political climate. The case and surrounding public debate raise wider questions about multiculturalism and universal human rights, and the approach that the courts should take to resolve conflicts between diametrically opposed cultural traditions.