Representation at Tribunals

Published date01 March 1990
Date01 March 1990
AuthorTom Mullen
DOIhttp://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2230.1990.tb01807.x
Representation at Tribunals
Tom
Mullen"
The recent report,
The Eflectiveness
of
Representation
at
Tribunals,'
of a research project
commissioned by the Lord Chancellor's Department, is of interest for several reasons.
First, in providing up to date information on the operation of the tribunal system it may
influence debate
on
a number of issues, of which the effectiveness of representation is
only one. Second, since the research was research commissioned by a government
department, it is even possible that it might have some effect
on
government policy in
the foreseeable future. Third, it will add fuel to the debate over the extension of legal
aid to tribunals, and other methods of providing representation from public funds, such
as the greater use of lay representation.
The Research
and
its
Findings
In contrast to many previous sectoral projects which have concentrated on particular
tribunals, this research focuses on a single theme
-
the
effectiveness of representation
-
and assesses it across a range of tribunals. The study covers four tribunals:
(1)
Social
Security Appeal Tribunals (SSATs),
(2)
Industrial Tribunals,
(3)
Immigration Adjudicators,
and
(4)
Mental Health Review Tribunals (MHRTs), in each case using the standard research
techniques of documentary analysis, interviews and participant observation to produce
both a statistical and an impressionistic description of how representation functions
in
tribunal
proceedings.
Whilst having due regard to the differences between the various tribunals examined,
the
authors of the report are able to draw relatively uniform general conclusions from
the data gathered. The principal general conclusion of- the report is that specialist
representation increases
the
likelihood of success for appellants and applicants at tribunal
hearings. However, many appellants and applicants still appear unrepresented at tribunals,
sometimes as a matter of choice but more often because appropriate representation is
unavailable or unaffordable. This conclusion will come as no surprise to anyone acquainted
with the literature arising out of earlier studies
of
the four tribunals included in this
research.2 However, where this report differs is in
the
length to which the researchers
have gone in attempting to isolate the effect of representation from other factors which
might influence success at tribunal hearings. The basic correlations established between
representation and success in each of the four tribunals were analysed using the statistical
technique of multiple regression analysis, which is designed to quantify the effect of one
factor on another while holding constant all other variable factors. Whilst not solving all
the epistemological difficulties involved in establishing a link between representation and
success, the rigour of the statistical analysis in this study, taken together with the more
interpretative analysis of data derived from interviews and tribunal observation, makes
the general conclusion that representation has an
independent
effect on success, virtually
unassailable.
The main concern of the authors appears to be to rebut the argument, originally derived
from the Donoughmore Committee, and repeated in the Franks Report, that there
is
no
*
Lecturer in Public
Law,
University
of
Glasgow.
1
2
Hazel Genn
&
Yvette Genn,
The E'ectiveness
of
Representation at Tribunals
(London: Lord Chancellor's
Department, 1989) (hereinafter cited as
Repon).
The literature is surveyed in Richard Rawlings,
Grievance Procedure
and
Administrative Justice:
A
Review
of
Socio-legal Research
(London:
ESRC,
1987) pp
11
-3
1.
230
The Modem Low Review
53:2 March
1990
0026-7961

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT