Challenging the Authority of the Ombudsman: The Parliamentary Ombudsman's Special Report on Wartime Detainees
Challenging the Authority of the Ombudsman: The Parliamentary Ombudsman's Special Report on Wartime Detainees
复制标题
挑战监察员的权威：议会监察员关于战时被拘留者的特别报告
DOI：
--
复制
发表时间：
2006
期刊：
影响因子：
--
通讯作者：
Richard L. Kirkham
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Richard L. Kirkham
总的来说，议会监察员（PO）在英国宪法中占有重要地位2，并为政府行政失当行为提供了一种非常有效的替代补救措施。然而，为了保持这一地位，PO 依赖于政府部门的持续合作和尊重。因此，令人担忧的是，在 2005-06 年的八个月内，PO 两次被迫发布特别报告，以回应政府拒绝其调查结果，政府的抵制程度前所未有。本文详细探讨了其中的第一份报告《M 荣誉债务》：第二次世界大战期间被日本拘留的英国团体的特惠计划（以下简称“特别报告”）3，并分析了 PO 调查过程中出现的法律问题。4 该特别报告是根据 1967 年议会专员法 (PCA) 第 10(3) 条提交议会的，在监察员报告中值得注意因为在完成调查时，PO 必须解决监察员权力的一些法律上不确定的特征。值得注意的是，就其职能而言，PO 选择广泛解释她在法律上有权进行的调查范围以及她可以适用的行政失当标准。这种做法使她与负责部门国防部 (MOD) 发生冲突，国防部担心 PO 侵入了仅属于法院的权力领域。对于国防部来说，PO 应该更加尊重上诉法院就英国平民被拘留者协会：远东中同一问题做出的裁决
In the main the Parliamentary Ombudsman (PO)' occupies an eminent position within the British constitution2 and provides a highly effective form of alternative redress against acts of government maladministration. However, in order to maintain that status the PO is reliant upon the continuing cooperation and respect of government departments. It is therefore of some concern that within the space of eight months during 2005-06 the PO was twice forced to issue a special report in response to a government rejection of her findings, an unprecedented rate of government resistance. This article examines in some detail the first of those reports, M Debt of Honour': The ex gratia schemefor British groups interned by thejapanese during the Second World War (hereafter 'the Special Report'),3 and analyses the legal questions that arose during the course of the PO's investigation.4 The Special Report was laid before Parliament under section 10(3) of the Parliamentary Commissioner Act 1967 (PCA) and is noteworthy amongst ombudsman reports because in completing her investigation the PO had to address a number of legally uncertain features of an ombudsman's powers. Significantly, in relation to her functions, the PO chose to interpret widely the lines of inquiry that she is legally empowered to pursue and the standards of maladministration that she can apply. This approach brought her into conflict with the department responsible, the Ministry of Defence (MOD), which was concerned that the PO was trespassing into areas of authority which belonged to the courts alone. For the MOD, the PO should have shown much greater deference to the decision of the Court of Appeal on the same issue in Association ofBritish Civilian Internees: Far East