David Burrows asks, is the tribunal system human rights compliant?
The European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Freedoms 1950, Art 6(1) provides that a person is entitled to a fair trial before an impartial tribunal. But how far is it possible to have a fair trial where the law under consideration is beyond the comprehension of the averagely intelligent lay person (AILP); and where, for practical purposes, legal representation is denied, because legal aid is not available?
To test this question I take the new child support scheme (effective from 24 July 2008 under the Child Maintenance and Other Payments Act 2008) as applied under the even slightly newer tribunal scheme (introduced on 3 November 2008 pursuant to the Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act 2007).
The 2007 Act brings with it a new set of procedural rules for tribunals. The most radical departure for both rules and the 2008 Act is the impulse towards a “voluntary” ethos and mediation: “voluntary maintenance arrangements” occurs early in the 2008 scheme (s 2(2)(a)).
Tribunals Procedure (Upper Tribunal) Rules 2008 (SI 2008/2698) r 3(1) requires
