Reviews
| Published date | 01 July 1966 |
| DOI | http://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2230.1966.tb01131.x |
| Date | 01 July 1966 |
REVIEWS
THE
OMBUDSMAN.
Edited
by
DONALD
C.
ROWAT. [London:
Allen
COMINO
out just before the Government’s White Paper
A
Parlimentary
Commissionor
for
Administrution
(Cmnd.
27G7),
this was
a
very timely
publication. Over roughly the last seven years, quite
a
number of articles
have been published here on the Ombudsman systcm in Denmark and Sweden,
and more recently on
tlie
New Zealand Ombudsman who took o5ce
in
1962.
Now we have
a
most useful book. The principal features of the British
Constitution have been adopted or adapted by countless countries overseas,
particularly, of course, by the countries
of
the Commonwealth. The reverse
process-the grafting of
a
foreign idea onto the British Constitution-is
something
of
an historical event. The debt to foreign systems is acknowledged
by the Government, yet
a
remnant
of
insularity breaks through-nowhere In
the White Paper is the word “Ombudsman” used. Surely the Press has
familiarised
us
sufficiently with the word to counteract any latent xenophobia
and
to
permit,
as
New Zealand does, the use of “Ombudsman” and
“
Parliamentary Commissioner as alternatives.
Twenty-nine contributors have participated in this work. Those who
write from Scandinavia and New Zealand offer descriptive analyses
of
existing Ombudsman systems and thcre are contributors from the many
countries where
a
similar system is being contemplated. One cannot but be
a
little disappointed that the essay on the New Zealand Ombudsman by
J.
F.
Nortliey and the essay by Professor
J.
D.
B.
Mitchell on “The
Irrelevance of the Ombudsman Proposals” are little more than rehashes of
articles written for
Publio
Law
in
1962.
A
reference to the police
(p.
276)
with no mention
of
the Police Act
1964
indicates tliat Professor Mitchell’s
article has not even been brought
up
to date.
His
phrase “ndmlnistrative
palliatives rang
a
bell and one pictures him now astride the old hobby-horse
ever ready to dispatch another letter to
The
Times.
Professor Mitchell is
an admirer
of
the Conseil d’ltnt but the di5culty of adopting that system
here is that it is not just
a
matter
of
creating an institution. Professor Abel
of Toronto puts the point exactly when he says of the Consell d’ht that he
cannot stifle his “grave doubt whether the alien career patterns
of
it8
members that really explain its succcss cm catch on with
us”
(p.
281).
Another contribution from Canada, the essay by D. C. Rowat and
H.
J.
Llambias, contains
a
number of points of particular interest for Britain.
Opponents of an Ombudsman for Britain argue that an M.P. already acts
as
an Ombudsman for his constituents and the new institution is unnecessary.
A
questionnaire sent to Canadian
M.P.s
in
1OG4
revealed the inadequacies
of
the present system. One M.P. stnted bluntly that he had insulficient time or
secretarial assistance to deal with complaints; another felt that not all M2.s
had the experience or training
to
deal with some
of
the issues that arise.
Perhaps
of
special significance
is
the point that in most cases M.P.8 could
only obtain information
at
secondhand from the Minister or civil servant
since they lacked access to the files. Voices have
already been raised in favour of extending the Ombudsman idea
to
the deld
of local government or to investigate complaints against the pollce.
No
one
seems to be urging that we should institute an Ombudsman in the Armed
Forces but if at any time we have
a
conscripted Army once more interest
may be aroused in the workings of the Military Ombudsman in Sweden,
445
and
Unwin.
1066.
848
pp.
50s.
net.]
The Government proposals are cautious and experlmentnl.
446
THE
MODERN
LAW
REVIEW
VOL.
29
Norway and West Germany that
are
described here. The United
States
Army has
a
similar institution-an Inspector-General, who may take up
complaints from
a
soldier of any rank. Profeesor Evan of the M.I.T.
argua
that the mere existence of this mechanism probably restrains
offlccrs
from
acting arbitrarily, but admits it
is
resented because it cute across the prlnciple
of
the chain
of
command.
Civil servants no doubt view with disfavour the prospect of an Ombudsman
breathing down their necks, but Scandinavian experience is that by sweeping
aside unfounded suspiclon, an Ombudsman cnn strengthcn public confidence
in the civil service. In
a
livcly
-say
from
a
Dublin solicitor, Max Abraham-
son, the point
is
made that there
is
no human characteristic
so
strong
aa
that
of believing the worst of otliers, and any delay
or
deciston not explained
will be presumed
to
be
a
result
of the worst possible motives. This, he says,
quite apart from any question of fault on the part
of
the administration,
is
the basic justification of
the
Ombudsman, “particularly
in
Ireland where
cynicism
is
perhaps
a
national characteristic.” Not only, one may think, in
Ireland. GORDON
BOERIE.
THE
CIIALLENOR
CAeE.
By
MARY GRIQG.
[Hnrmondsworth: Pen-
guin
Books.
A
Penguin Special. 1985. 192 pp.
8s.
6d.
net.]
UNTIL
something more objective and better documented appears this account
of the notorious scrles of cases in which Detective-Sergcnnt Chalienor
appcared and of the campaign to right the wrongs done by him and his
fellow policemen provides
a
passable introduction to what
is
gcncraily
regarded as the most scandalous episode in the whole history of the Mctro-
politan Police.
Only
those who followed
tlic
scrles of cases with which
Challenor was concerncd carefully
at
the time
or
who have given them
attention since the affait. blew up will have realised how large was the number
of people affected by the unlawful, and somctlmcs criminal actions of this
mentally sick policeman. Twenty-six cases are discussed in this volume, but it
is
suggested that there were in fact many more, and the Home Once
is
under
attack throughout the book
for
its
alleged
procrnstination and aiiatory
conduct both in investigating complaints, and in compensating those who
were
clearly
wrongly convicted as the result of perjured police evidence.
Unfortunately the book which appcars
to
have been written very hurriedly
shows
so
much misunderstanding of the administration of criminal justice in
England and of the Home Secretary’s constitutional position in regard to it,
mnkcs
so
many serious allegations on
a
basis of comments and scanty
evidence, and contains
so
much illogical argument that one
is
continually left
in doubt as to how much of it is in any real sense reliable.
A
general feeling of doubt as
to
how
far one should accept the complete
accuracy of the statements made in the book is induced from the beginning
by the copy
of
Penguin
News
which accompanied the review copy. In this
the authoress is described
as
the Secretary of the National Council of Civil
Liberties whereerr the Preface to the volume itself makes clear that thls post
is
actually ’flied by Mr. Mnrtin Ennals. The National Council’ indeed
deserves great credit for the pertinacity and acumen with which it followed
up
the
Challenor cases nnd it will be
a
thousand pities if this is eroded by
its being too closely associated with this book. Mr. Ennais in the Preface
which he contributes appears
to
be aware that the work is Opcn to crlticlsm,
as
for instance
in
the paragraph
in
which he says that the “book docs not
set out to be
a
judicial assessment.
It
is
a
story told by one who has been
aware
of
the anguish of the relatives, and has seen
the
hurt that mishaps,
crrors
and injustice can bring”
:
true, but emotional engagement should not
be allowed to take control, especially in
a
book which is concerncd with
justice,
or
in the end the protagonists of justice will themselva be
guilty
To continue reading
Request your trial