1 Susan Sterett, “Keeping the Law up to Date: The Idiom of Legalism and the Reform of Administrative Law in England and Wales,” 15 Law & Soc. Inquiry 731 (1990). All page references in the text relate to this article. The Law Commission has issued two reports in this field: Law commission No. 20, Administrative Law, Cmnd. 4059 (1969); Law Commission No. 73, Report on Remedies in Administrative Law, Cmnd. 6407 (1976).Google Scholar

2 See Cretney, Stephen, “The Politics of Law Reform—A View from the Inside,” 48 Mod L Rev. 493, 495 & 501–3 (1985). Cretney was a Law Commissioner between 1978 and 1983. This article includes a valuable bibliography of writings on the Law Commission. The growing literature on the Law Commission includes William H. Hurlburt, Law Reform Commissions in the United Kingdom, Australia and Canada (Edmonton: Juriliber, 1986) (“Hurlburt, Law Reform Commissions”), and other works cited below. Aubrey Diamond, who was a Law Commissioner from 1971 to 1976, has said that his experiences at the Commission “have led me to doubt that there is anything truly called ‘lawyer's law,’ if that is intended to mean a question important enough for law reform in which no political or social issues arise.”“The Law Commission and Government Departments” (“Diamond, ‘Law Commission’), in Graham Zellick, ed., The Law Commission and Law Reform 21, 25 (London: Sweet & Maxwell, 1988) (“Zellick, Law Commission”).Google Scholar

3 This concept is derived from Terence Halliday, Beyond Monopoly (Chicago University of Chicago Press, 1987).Google Scholar

4 However, some types of comparative method are suspect: see Otto Kahn-Freund, “On Uses and Abuses of Comparative Law,” 37 Mod. L Rev. 1 (1974); Jonathan Hill, “Comparative Law, Law Reform and Legal Theory,” 9 Oxford J. Legal Stud 101 (1989); Mark Could, “Comparing the Incomparable?” 19 Anglo-Am. L. Rev. 360 (1990).Google Scholar

5 Oerton, R. T., A Lament for the Law Commission (“Oerton, Lament”) 41–46 (Chichester: Countrywise Press, 1987). Oerton was a Solicitor in the LCD who was seconded to the Commission for over 12 years from 1972.Google Scholar

6 Lord Scarman, “Law Reforms in a Democratic Society,” Fourth Jawaharlal Nehru Memorial Lecture (New Delhi: National Publishing House, 1979); Sir Ralph Gibson, “The Law Commission,” 39 Current Legal Probs. 57 (1986). Sir Ralph Gibson chaired the Commission from 1981 to 1985.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

7 North, P. M., “Law Reform: Processes and Problems.” 101 L. Q. Rev. 338 (1985). Dr. North was a Law Commissioner between 1976 and 1984. See further Zellick, Law Commission 74–77.Google Scholar

8 North, 101 L.Q. Rev. at 342. On the question of the “independence” of the Commission, see Oerton, Lament 103–9.Google Scholar

9 Michael Kerr, “Law Reform in Changing Times,” 96 L. Q. Rev. 515, 524 (1980). Sir Michael Kerr chaired the Law Commission between 1978 and 1981.Google Scholar

10 However, with the appointment of J. Beatson as a Law Commissioner in 1989, the Law Commission now has the necessary expertise in administrative law. Clearly with this in mind, the Law Commission's Fifth Programme of Law Reform proposes a reexamination of “the procedures and forms of relief available by way of judicial review.” Law Commission no. 200: Cm. 1556(1991).Google Scholar

11 Law Commission no. 73, app. B. The panel included Lord Justice Bridge (now Lord Bridge of Harwich, a Lord of Appeal in Ordinary): Michael Mann, Q.C., a former academic, who later became one of the original judges hearing the Crown Office List and is now a Lord Justice of Appeal; civil servants F. N. Charlton from the Treasury Solicitor's Office and W. R. Cox from the Home Office; Professor S. A. de Smith and Professor H. W. R. Wade.Google Scholar

12 See generally Hurlburt, Law Reform Commissions 362–72; Diamond, “Law Commission” (both cited in note 2).Google Scholar

13 Kerr, 96 L.Q. Rev. at 531.Google Scholar

14 This is a position that might be traced back to the Home Office's attitude to the Law Commission when it was first proposed. Cretney, 48 Mod L Rev. at 509–10 (cited in note 2).Google Scholar

15 Kerr, 96 LQ. Rev.Google Scholar

16 These difficulties have been noted recently by the Commission's current chairman, Mr. Justice Peter Gibson in the annual Denning Lecture, quoted by F. M. B. Reynolds, “The Law Commission 25 Years on,” 107 L.Q. Rev. 517 (1991).Google Scholar

17 For example, the reforms recommended in Review of Child Law: Guardianship and Custody (Law Com. no. 172, H.C. 594, 1987/88) might not have been acted on had child abuse not become a high-profile issue: Dame Elizabeth Butler-Sloss, Report of the Inquiry into Child Abuse in Cleveland, Cm. 412 (1987), led to the Children Act 1989.Google Scholar

18 Oerton, Lament, 107 (cited in note 8), cites the passage of the Enduring Powers of Attorney Act 1985 as an example of what he calls “messing around” with Commission proposals.Google Scholar

19 London: Stevens, 1959. The current (4th) edition appeared in 1980, edited by J. M. Evans.Google Scholar

20 Administrative Law (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1961). The current (6th) edition appeared in 1988.Google Scholar

21 See also Wade's inaugural lecture at the University of Oxford (21 Feb. 1962): “Law, Opinion, and Administration,” 78 L.Q. Rev. 188 (1962).Google Scholar

22 Ridge v. Baldwin [1964] A.C. 40; see also the subsequent development in Chief Constable of North Wales Constabulary v. Evans [1982] 1 W.L.R. 1155.Google Scholar

23 Padfield v. Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food [1968] A.C. 997.Google Scholar

24 Anisminic Ltd. v. Foreign Compensation Commission [1969] 2 A.C. 147.Google Scholar

25 Council for Civil Service Unions v. Minister for the Civil Service [1985] A.C. 374; R. v. Panel on Takeovers and Mergers, ex parte Datafin plc [1987] Q.B. 815; R. v. Secretary of State for the Home Department, ex parte Handscomb (1987) 86 Cr. App. R. 59.Google Scholar

26 [1983] 2 A.C. 237.Google Scholar

27 Practice Direction: Trials in London [1981] 1 W.L.R. 1296. See Louis Blom-Cooper, “The New Face of Judicial Review: Administrative Changes in Order 53,”Pub. L. 250 (1982).Google Scholar

28 Law Com. no. 73, para. 34.Google Scholar

29 JUSTICE/All Souls Committee for the Review of Administrative Law, Administrative Law—some Necessary Reforms 148 (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1988).Google Scholar

30 For example, Leech v. Parkhurst Prison Deputy Governor [1988] A.C. 533 at 565–68 (Lord Bridge) and 582–83 (Lord Oliver) in the context of prison administration. See generally David Feldman, “Public Law Values in the House of Lords,” 106 L.Q. Rev. 246 (1990).Google Scholar

31 Cretney, 48 Mod. L. Rev. at 497 n.18 (cited in note 2).Google Scholar

32 The Law Commission, Fifth Programme of Law Reform, Law Com. no. 200, Cm. 1556, at 3 (London: HMSO 1991). The move is prompted by the report of the JUSTICE/ All Souls Committee cited in note 29.Google Scholar

33 Law Commission Consultative Paper No. 119, Mentally Incapacitated Adults and Decision-Making: An Overview (London: HMSO, 1991).Google Scholar

34 See the various views expressed in H. F. Rawlings, “Judicial Review and the Control of Government,” 64 Pub. Admin. 135 (1986); Sir Michael Kerry, “Administrative Law and Judicial Review—The Practical Effects of Developments over the Last 25 Years on Administration in Central Government,” 64 Pub. Admin. 163 (1986); and David Feldman, “Judicial Review: A Way of Controlling Government?” 66 Pub. Admin. 21 (1988).Google Scholar

35 Carol Harlow & Richard Rawlings, Law and Administration 258 (London: Weidenfeld & Nicolson, 1984) (“Harlow & Rawlings, Law and Administration”).Google Scholar

36 However, the civil service has only recently recognized the threat of judicial review, precipitating efforts at education. See Bradley, A. W., “The Judge over Your Shoulder,” 1987 Pub. L.Q. 485.Google Scholar

37 An introduction to forms of redress can be found in Patrick Birkinshaw, Grievances, Remedies and the State (London: Sweet & Maxwell, 1985). See also Norman Lewis, Mary Seneviratne, & Sarah Cracknell, Complaints Procedures in Local Comment (Sheffield: Centre for Criminological and Socio-Legal Studies, 1987).Google Scholar

38 Wade, H. W. R., Administrative Law chap. 23. 6th ed. (Oxford, 1988).Google Scholar

39 See Genn, Hazel & Genn, Yvette, The Effectiveness of Representation at Tribunals (London: Faculty of Laws, QMC London, 1989).Google Scholar

40 Report of the Committee on Administrative Tribunals and Enquiries (chaired by Sir Oliver Franks), Cmnd. 218 (1957).Google Scholar

41 See also The Functions of the Council on Tribunals, Cmnd. 7805 (1980).Google Scholar

42 See Harlow & Rawlings, Law and Administration, chap. 6.Google Scholar

43 See Bradley, A. W., “The Council on Tribunals: Time for a Broader Role?” 1991 Pub. L. 6.Google Scholar