The Membership of Two Administrative Tribunals
| Published date | 01 December 1970 |
| DOI | http://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9299.1970.tb00038.x |
| Date | 01 December 1970 |
The Membership
of
Two Administrative Tribunals
W.E.CAVENAGH AND D.NEWTON
DrXavenagh
is
a Senior Lecturer in Social Administration and a member
of
the
Committee
of
Management
of
the Institute
of
Judicial Administration at the Univer-
sity
of
Birmingham and Mrs.Newton
is
her
Research Associate. This work has been
meborted
by
an
S.S.R.C.
Grant.
INTRODUCTION
There are over
two
thousand administrative tribunals in this country
covering almost every conceivable area of grievance
or
appeal, from Betting
Levy Appeal Tribunals to Plant Variety Rights Tribunals. Substantial
powers are conferred upon them by statute, and they have been seen as
crucial safeguards of citizens’ rights. Sometimes the issues they decide
are
of
vital importance to the individual: the Mental Health Review
Tribunal, for example, has the power to release patients detained against
their will in mental hospitals. It has been said of the social service tribunals
that they are ‘likely to be
of
greater significance to ordinary citizens than
the courts of law’.’
But in spite of their obvious importance administrative tribunals have
remained relatively unknown to social scientists and public alike, and even
lawyers have not paid them the attention that their position in the judicial
system seem to warrant. Virtually no empirical research has been carried
out, and as
a
result littIe is known about them.2 This neglect
is
at last
being remedied by, among others, the Institute of Judicial Administration
at Birmingham University, which is currently engaged upon
a
feasibility
study
of
the membership and recruitment of three administrative tribunals
in the West Midlands. The aim of this study is first to discover who tribunal
members are and how the methods of recruitment and selection actually
work
out in practice, and then to consider whether
the
results suggest that
the recruitment net could be widened. The intention is to
look
at these
questions in some depth and to see whether
a
more comprehensive nation-
wide study is needed.
The question
of
membership is of crucial importance. Indeed, as far
back
as
1950
Pollard wrote: ‘It is impossible to over-emphasize the impor-
tance
of
the
quality of the personnel who man these
tribunal^'.^
Whatever
the particular issue, the ability and judgment of the members are vital,
449
PUBLIC
ADMINISTRATION
especially where the area of discretion is wide, or where applicants are
not legally represented,
as
is usually the case. The chairman’s role is
particularly important where there is no legal representation. The decision
to focus on membership thus seemed an obvious one, and it was felt that
it would probably also throw light on many other important questions
relating to the functioning of tribunals.
The problem of the selection of three West Midland tribunals for special
study proved difficult. The enormous variety
of
different types of adminis-
trative tribunal and the fact that no two tribunals seem to be exactly alike
made it virtually impossible to find subjects ‘typical’ of administrative
tribunals as
a
whole. Every tribunal deals, of course, with
a
different
subject matter, but the
nature
of the issue can also differ,
as
can the kind
of
procedure adopted (resembling that of
a
court of law strongly in some
instances, and in others hardly at all). Areas of knowledge or experience
regarded as relevant in members also differ, with regard to both ‘lay’
and ‘specialist’ members. Some tribunals even consist entirely of ‘lay’
members and require no formal qualifications, such
as
the Local Valuation
Court. Some have
a
fixed composition laid down by statute, while others
do not. The appointing bodies also vary quite widely. Some members sit
daily and deal with
a
huge volume of business, while others sit very in-
frequently, sometimes less than once a year. The geographical areas on
which they are based also vary quite widely. This by no means complete
list should at least illustrate the enormous complexity of the tribunal world.
In the light of this complexity we tried to select tribunals which, first,
seemed to be no more a-typical than any other tribunals according
to
the
various criteria indicated above, and, secondly, seemed to be sufficientIy
different from each other both to open up possibilities of later comparisons
between different types of tribunal, and to indicate those aspects which
all tribunals might have in common. The first two tribunals chosen in this
way were the Mental Health Review Tribunal for the Birmingham
Regional Hospital Board area, and the West Midlands Rent Assessment
Panel. The preliminary results of a survey of the membership of these
two
tribunals form the basis of this article.
The Tribunals and their Membership: the
scope
of
the
stu4
Mental Health Review Tribunals were introduced by the Mental Health
Act
of
1959~
as
part of
a
major attempt to improve mental health services.
There are fifteen
of
them in England and Wales, one for each Hospital
Board area
:
the Birmingham area includes such towns
as
Wolverhampton,
Stafford and Shrewsbury. These tribunals exist to hear appeals from
mentally ill or subnormal patients compulsorily detained in mental
hospitals. Normally they have powers of discharge, although not in the
case
of
patients detained under court restriction orders. The Birmingham
Tribunal consists of sixty-seven members. Three members normally sit
450
To continue reading
Request your trial