Don Staniford (Letters, THES, September 24) claims the visitorial system lacks independence. What is the evidence for this? Why is the Lord Chancellor, the Lord President of the Council, a committee of the Privy Council or the Master of the Rolls (to take the main examples) any less independent than any (other) member of the judiciary?
Staniford then attacks visitors for not adhering to "the most basic principles of natural justice". This is based on the notion that only an adversarial forensic hearing in open court can provide due process. What about the Parliamentary ombudsman and every other ombudsman?
These are universally regarded as fair, just and effective mechanisms for addressing complaints and resolving grievances, and any visitor exercising his jurisdiction properly will adhere to procedures no less exacting.
Graham Zellick Vice-chancellor, University of London
请先注册再继续
为何要注册?
- 注册是免费的,而且十分便捷
- 注册成功后,您每月可免费阅读3篇文章
- 订阅我们的邮件
已经注册或者是已订阅?