000			01803naa a2200181uu 4500
001			6032415013321
003			OSt
005			20190211160758.0
008			060324s2006 xx ||||gr |0|| 0 eng d
100	1		_aDREWRY, Gavin _93059
245	1	0	_aThe complementarity of audit and judicial review : _bthe ‘homes for votes’ scandal in the UK
260			_aThousand Oaks, CA : _bSage publications , _cSept. 2005
520	3		_aThe 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.
773	0	8	_tInternational Review of Administrative Sciences _g71, 3, p. 375-389 _dThousand Oaks, CA : Sage publications , Sept. 2005 _xISSN 00208523 _w
942			_cS
998			_a20060324 _b1501^b _cNatália
998			_a20140206 _b1539^b _cPedro
999			_aConvertido do Formato PHL _bPHL2MARC21 1.1 _c15156 _d15156
041			_aeng