Taking a unique and critical approach to the study of Public Law, this book explores the main topics in UK Public Law from a range of underexplored perspectives and amplifies the voices of scholars who are underrepresented in the field. As such, it represents a much-needed complement to traditional textbooks in Public Law.
Including insights from a diverse list of contributors, the book:
-
Enriches students’ understanding of the dynamics that emerge within public law;
-
Highlights the impact of historical and societal inequities on public law norms;
-
Demonstrates the ways in which those norms may impact minorities and perpetuate inequalities.
With most chapters written by underrepresented or minoritised persons in the field, this text offers students a critical, rich, and insightful approach to public law.
… but we just don’t have it.’1 This has been so for a range of reasons in recent history. Perhaps the primary failing of the present judicial review system is one of expense: judicial review is a ‘Rolls-Royce’ process that few can afford.2 This state of affairs was recently described as ‘public law’s disgrace.’3 It is while facing this reality that potential claimants 1 Street, Harry (1975) Justice in the Welfare State (2nd edn), London: Stevens and Sons, p 65. 2 Hickman, Tom (2017) ‘Public law’s disgrace’, 9 February, UK Constitutional Law Blog, 9 February
FIvE Conclusion Digitalisation in the context of the administrative justice system presents a wide variety of issues. The case studies in this book have demonstrated that. It is essential that the ongoing incursion of digital technology into administrative justice is not seen as some distinct field of interest and activity, but as part of the core business of those concerned with public law and administrative justice. There will be no satisfying overall answer or theory that can be developed in response to this incursion. In administrative justice
using administrative law rules governing discretionary power’, Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A, 376, 2128. 11 For a detailed account of the foundations of this approach, see Loughlin, Martin (2005) ‘The functionalist style in public law’, University of Toronto Law Journal, 55, 361–403; Loughlin, Martin (2014) ‘Modernism in British public law, 1919–1979’, Public Law, 56. This is not an uncontested approach; for context, see Loughlin, Martin (1992) Public Law and Political Theory, Oxford: Clarendon Press. Nor, too, is the identification of
Available Open Access under CC-BY-NC licence. Exploring how justice is delivered at a time of rapid technological transformation, Justice in the Digital State exposes urgent issues surrounding the modernisation of courts and tribunals whilst examining the effects of technology on established systems. Case studies investigate the rise of crowdfunded judicial reviews, the digitalisation of tribunals and the rise of ‘agile’ methodologies in building administrative justice systems. Joe Tomlinson’s cutting-edge research offers an authoritative and much-needed guide for navigating through the challenges of digital disruption.
, Varda (2012) Designing Redress, London: Public Law Project. There is limited literature directly addressing the issue. 3 I use the two terms interchangeably for the purposes of the discussion here. 4 Bason, Christian (2010) Leading Public Sector Innovation: Co-creating for a Better Society, Bristol: Policy Press, p 138. 5 Simon, Herbert A. (1969) The Sciences of the Artificial, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. 6 Ibid. 7 See, for example, Rowe, Peter G. (1987) Design Thinking, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. 64 JUSTICE IN THE DIGITAL STATE thought.8 There is no precise
and Yseult Marique (eds) Access to Justice: Beyond the Policies and Politics of Austerity, Oxford: Hart Publishing, p 127, which speculates on the possibility of ‘the end of appeals’ in immigration redress. 24 Berthoud, Richard and Bryson, Alex (1997) ‘Social security appeals: What do the claimants want?’, Journal of Social Security Law, 4, 17–41; Richardson, Genevra and Genn, Hazel (2007) ‘Tribunals in transition’, Public Law, 116. 25 Thomas, p 126 (note 23 above). 26 See, for example, House of Commons Constitutional Affairs Committee (2004) Asylum and
Public law teaching is in a perpetual state of flux. Public law issues dominate the news cycle, raising public consciousness of norms and conventions that are normally solely the purview of the most expert of lawyers and academics. 1 A prolonged period of political upheaval and public policy reforms have highlighted the importance of the principles and actors that guide public law and the impact that this field has on the state at large, as well as the lives of individuals. This instability in UK public law has coincided with a move towards rethinking
examine whether the Home Office’s decision complied with basic public law principles, such as the requirements that a decision be rational and procedurally fair. The ETS cases have generated a vast number of challenges in these two channels: over 14,000 cases so far, with more continuing to be brought and heard. 69 From one perspective, this may seem like a sign of a healthy system, with a relatively high number of affected individuals challenging decisions. However, the scandal raises serious questions about whether these redress systems were suited to the job. Many
In recent years, the United Kingdom's Home Office has started using automated systems to make immigration decisions. These systems promise faster, more accurate, and cheaper decision-making, but in practice they have exposed people to distress, disruption, and even deportation.
This book identifies a pattern of risky experimentation with automated systems in the Home Office. It analyses three recent case studies including: a voice recognition system used to detect fraud in English-language testing; an algorithm for identifying ‘risky’ visa applications; and automated decision-making in the EU Settlement Scheme.
The book argues that a precautionary approach is essential to ensure that society benefits from government automation without exposing individuals to unacceptable risks.
