The Upper Tribunal (Administrative Appeals Chamber) safeguarding role towards the First-tier Tribunal (Mental Health)

The Upper Tribunal (Administrative Appeals Chamber) safeguarding role towards the First-tier Tribunal (Mental Health)

Introduction

Tribunals provide an alternative to the courts for resolving disputes. Although they deal primarily with individuals aggrieved that a government department or agency has got a decision affecting them wrong, they resolve party to party disputes, such as employment issues arising between individuals and businesses. Consequently, tribunals deal with matters as diverse as they are fundamental to the lives of citizens, including the review of decisions as to whether a patient is properly detained (the Mental Health Review Tribunal), whether a child is obtaining adequate academic support (the Special Educational Needs and Disability Tribunal) or whether to provide child support benefit (Appeals Tribunal).

Traditionally considered advantageous because of their expertise and because they have been perceived as a less costly, less protracted and less complex means of adjudication than the courts. Therefore, tribunals grew over the twentieth century to become an integral and significant part of the administrative justice system. In recent years, however, the landscape has become increasingly complex and fragmented and has been the subject of criticisms which have highlighted the need for change.

In England and Wales, responsibility for making tribunal rules vests in the Tribunal Procedure Committee established by the Tribunals Courts and Enforcement Act 2007. The Committee has responsibility for making rules governing both the First-tier and Upper Tribunal. In Northern Ireland, responsibility for making rules of procedure vests in the relevant sponsor Departments and is now primarily a matter for the Department of Justice which could undertake a review and harmonise existing rules.

Until recently tribunals in UK have operated independently of each other, an arrangement which resulted in concerns about variations in practice and inconsistency of approach. The absence of a common method of formally reporting findings to the parent departments also led to concerns that the function of improving public sector decision making was not being fully realised.

Levels of accountability have also caused unease. Although they are designed to be a more accessible means of challenging decisions than the courts, it is considered that tribunals should be able to demonstrate similar levels of impartiality and independence. Historic sponsorship arrangements did not, however, provide confidence that that goal had been achieved" as tribunals were funded and their members appointed by those same Departments whose decisions were being reviewed. In addition to criticisms of the system, the Government agenda for reform of public services also increased momentum for reform.

Discussion

While significant progress has been made on the creation of a unified administration, the tribunal landscape in UK remains a complex one. A number of tribunals remain outside the remit of the Department of Justice. Of the tribunals currently operating in UK, Department of Justice currently sponsors the following:

Care Tribunal;

Charity Tribunal;

Criminal Injuries Compensation Appeals Panel;

Health and Safety Tribunal;

Lands Tribunal;

Mental Health Review Tribunal;

Traffic Penalty Tribunal;

Social Security Commissioners and Child Support ...