Talk:Tribunals in the United Kingdom

To say that the tribunal system first grew up in the Twentieth Century seems strange since the General Commissioners of Income Tax constituted a tribunal from 1799: see http://generalcommissioners.gov.uk/AboutUs/aboutUs.htm. There are other examples but I'm afraid they do not come to mind. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Taliesin27 (talk • contribs) 00:45, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Update

This article needs updating to include the merger of TS with HMCS to form HMCTS in April 2011. NtheP (talk) 13:53, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

There doesn't appear to be a reference to the Mental Health Review Tribunal which seems an important oversight... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 159.86.191.21 (talk) 10:21, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Other things to include and some sources

Some sources I'm looking at include

• ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNALS AND ADJUDICATION, Cane 2009, which compares tribunal processes in Australia, UK, US and France. The author is Australia. What's good is that this focuses on *the decision making process within tribunals* rather than *the legal case law surrounding appeals of the decision making process of tribunals*. Lots of books labelled administrative law, only deal with judicial review.

• Administrative law, Leyland -- This is a summary of judicial review (with a little philosophy mixed in) for English Law.

Other things to look at in include some historic reports by Donoughmore and Franks.

Also this policy documentation is quite interesting https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/217315/admin-justice-tribs-strategic-work-programme.pdf, and has a recent list of relevant reading.

(Talpedia (talk) 08:43, 18 October 2016 (UTC))

Rewrite of section

Hey I've rewritten the section on the law governing tribunals, but am yet to fill in the references for this though and got bored so am leaving this here. This draws upon https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/cooper-burden-standard-of-proof-spring2008.pdf

Law governing process

Main article: Judicial review in English law

The operation of a tribunal will often resemble a court of law and in some instances they can, like a court, issue orders resembling court ordered enforced by criminal punishment. Tribunals, however, are not courts of law and common law and legislative rules that apply to court proceeded may not apply. Further, while some of the principles of courts derive from common law, the functioning of tribunals may be set out in legislation and by contention the judiciary cannot invalidate legislation unlike in some countries with a written constituional. Nevertheless, the process of judicial review @link allow courts to challenge the decisions made by tribunals, through the principles of natural law @include link @ensure the notion of natural law is defined. @citation as well as sometimes applying rules by analogy to courts. For example, the courts have held that under some circumstances tribunals must apply standards of proof equivalent to criminal law because the sanctions hey impose as similar @link and examination of a case from the judiiciary page.

Some tribunals use inquisitorial @link rather adversarial @link systems, where the judges may control the court proceedings. An example of this is the @link mental health tribunal. These tribunals may have different standards of proof allowing evidence such as hearsay that are not allowed in court @example from judiciary review paper, and may use standards of proof such as the @check name burden of persuasion used in the mental health tribunal @check name. The decisions of some tribunals, such as the @link first-tier tribunal are non-binding unlike court decisions @citation.

--Talpedia (talk) 23:10, 29 May 2020 (UTC)