The complementarity of audit and judicial review: the ‘homes for votes’ scandal in the UK
| Date | 01 September 2005 |
| Author | Gavin Drewry |
| DOI | 10.1177/0020852305056808 |
| Published date | 01 September 2005 |
| Subject Matter | Articles |
The complementarity of audit and judicial review: the ‘homes
for votes’ scandal in the UK
Gavin Drewry
Abstract
The mechanisms of public accountability can take many different forms, and those
who hold others to account must themselves be accountable. A recent case of
serious electoral malpractice in a UK local authority illustrates some important
points about mechanisms of accountability and redress — in particular the
potential complementarity between the inquisitorial role of an auditor, and the
essentially adversarial nature of the judicial process. It also illustrates how the
courts can be used to hold auditors (who are, themselves, important instruments
of accountability) to account for their actions. Unlike an auditor, courts have
limited scope to conduct in-depth investigations of the issues that arise in litiga-
tion, so it is tempting to consider the possibility of providing an investigative
facility for particularly complex cases. However, as the case discussed here illus-
trates, this would involve substantial additional costs, as well as delays in the final
resolution of disputes, at a time when the courts are under increasing pressure to
streamline their procedures and become more cost-effective.
Prologue: ‘coming to power by crime’
Niccolò Machiavelli’s The Prince (Il Principe) contains a chapter entitled,’Those Who
Come to Power by Crime’. The kind of ‘crime’ that the author, writing in Florence in
the pre-democratic early 16th century, had mainly in mind was the unlawful killing
of political opponents and rivals. Such murderous criminality is far from unknown
to political life even in more recent times, but a much more common pathology of
modern representative democracies is the unlawful manipulation of the electoral
Gavin Drewry is Professor, Royal Holloway, University of London. This article derives in part from a
study of the UK Court of Appeal, funded by the Nuffield Foundation. It is based on a paper delivered
to the EGPA study group on Contractualisation in the Public Sector, at the EGPA conference in Oeiras,
Portugal, in September 2003.
Copyright © 2005 IIAS, SAGE Publications (London, Thousand Oaks, CA and New Delhi)
Vol 71(3):375–389 [DOI:10.1177/0020852305056808]
International
Review of
Administrative
Sciences
To continue reading
Request your trial