Ombudsmen as Courts

Stephen Thomson*

*Corresponding author for this work

Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review

2 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

The non-judicial character of ombudsmen is viewed as their greatest asset, offering a more accessible, informal and flexible channel than courts for expressing grievances. Yet the Pensions Ombudsman has objected vigorously to its characterisation in the Chancery Division as 'not a court', pointing to a range of judicial qualities with which it has been statutorily invested. This raises the broader question of whether ombudsmen can be courts; a rarely considered characterisation. It is argued in this article that, although some ombudsmen exhibit judicial or quasi-judicial attributes, they are categorically distinct from courts and should remain so. Parliament must be astute not to invest ombudsmen with too many judicial qualities, lest the boundary between exercising judicial functions and exercising the judicial power of the state is crossed. This article also gives cause to reflect more broadly on the fundamental and distinctive nature of courts, tribunals and ombudsmen.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)76-103
Number of pages28
JournalOxford Journal of Legal Studies
Volume42
Issue number1
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 2022
Externally publishedYes

Fingerprint

Dive into the research topics of 'Ombudsmen as Courts'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this