<style type="text/css"> .wpb_animate_when_almost_visible { opacity: 1; }</style> Enap catalog › Details for: The complementarity of audit and judicial review :
Normal view MARC view ISBD view

The complementarity of audit and judicial review : the ‘homes for votes’ scandal in the UK

By: DREWRY, Gavin.
Material type: materialTypeLabelArticlePublisher: Thousand Oaks, CA : Sage publications , Sept. 2005International Review of Administrative Sciences 71, 3, p. 375-389 Abstract: The mechanisms of public accountability can take many different forms, and those who hold others to account must themselves be accountable. A recent case of serious electoral malpractice in a UK local authority illustrates some important points about mechanisms of accountability and redress — in particular the potential complementarity between the inquisitorial role of an auditor, and the essentially adversarial nature of the judicial process. It also illustrates how the courts can be used to hold auditors (who are, themselves, important instruments of accountability) to account for their actions. Unlike an auditor, courts have limited scope to conduct in-depth investigations of the issues that arise in litigation, so it is tempting to consider the possibility of providing an investigative facility for particularly complex cases. However, as the case discussed here illustrates, this would involve substantial additional costs, as well as delays in the final resolution of disputes, at a time when the courts are under increasing pressure to streamline their procedures and become more cost-effective.
Tags from this library: No tags from this library for this title. Log in to add tags.
    average rating: 0.0 (0 votes)
No physical items for this record

The mechanisms of public accountability can take many different forms, and those who hold others to account must themselves be accountable. A recent case of serious electoral malpractice in a UK local authority illustrates some important points about mechanisms of accountability and redress — in particular the potential complementarity between the inquisitorial role of an auditor, and the essentially adversarial nature of the judicial process. It also illustrates how the courts can be used to hold auditors (who are, themselves, important instruments of accountability) to account for their actions. Unlike an auditor, courts have limited scope to conduct in-depth investigations of the issues that arise in litigation, so it is tempting to consider the possibility of providing an investigative facility for particularly complex cases. However, as the case discussed here illustrates, this would involve substantial additional costs, as well as delays in the final resolution of disputes, at a time when the courts are under increasing pressure to streamline their procedures and become more cost-effective.

There are no comments for this item.

Log in to your account to post a comment.

Click on an image to view it in the image viewer

Escola Nacional de Administração Pública

Escola Nacional de Administração Pública

Endereço:

  • Biblioteca Graciliano Ramos
  • Funcionamento: segunda a sexta-feira, das 9h às 19h
  • +55 61 2020-3139 / biblioteca@enap.gov.br
  • SPO Área Especial 2-A
  • CEP 70610-900 - Brasília/DF
<
Acesso à Informação TRANSPARÊNCIA

Powered by Koha