scholarly journals Addressing Disconnection: Automated Decision-Making, Administrative Law and Regulatory Reform

2021 ◽  
Vol 44 (3) ◽  
Author(s):  
Anna Huggins
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Judicial Review ◽  
Regulatory Reform ◽  
Administrative Law ◽  
Government Agencies ◽  
Mental Process ◽  
Automated Systems ◽  
Regulatory Evolution ◽  
Distinctive Features ◽  
Automated Decision Making

Automation is transforming how government agencies make decisions. This article analyses three distinctive features of automated decision-making that are difficult to reconcile with key doctrines of administrative law developed for a human-centric decision-making context. First, the complex, multi-faceted decision-making requirements arising from statutory interpretation and administrative law principles raise questions about the feasibility of designing automated systems to cohere with these expectations. Secondly, whilst the courts have emphasised a human mental process as a criterion of a valid decision, many automated decisions are made with limited or no human input. Thirdly, the new types of bias associated with opaque automated decision-making are not easily accommodated by the bias rule, or other relevant grounds of judicial review. This article, therefore, argues that doctrinal and regulatory evolution are both needed to address these disconnections and maintain the accountability and contestability of administrative decisions in the digital age.

A Comparative Approach to Administrative Adjudication

2020 ◽  
pp. 576-594
Author(s):  
Michael Asimow
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Judicial Review ◽  
Comparative Approach ◽  
Government Agencies ◽  
Entire System ◽  
Front Line ◽  
Initial Decision ◽  
The World ◽  
Administrative Adjudication

This chapter concerns administrative adjudication. The term ‘administrative adjudication’ means the entire system for individualized agency decision-making arising out of disputes between private parties and government agencies. The adjudicatory process begins with an administrative investigation of a claim or a violation and the agency’s preliminary or ‘front line’ determination, continuing through the process of an agency’s initial decision, reconsideration of that decision, and concluding with judicial review. The systems in place for resolving such disputes differ sharply around the world and are difficult to compare. This chapter highlights five models in use by various countries that should facilitate such comparisons.

scholarly journals The Unmeritorious ‘Legality’/‘Merits’ Distinction in Singapore Administrative Law

2021 ◽  
pp. 1-32
Author(s):  
Benjamin Joshua Ong
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Judicial Review ◽  
General Principle ◽  
Case Law ◽  
Administrative Law ◽  
Decision Making Process ◽  
Rough Approximation ◽  
Executive Decision Making ◽  
The Law

Abstract The Singapore courts often state that judicial review of executive decision-making ought only to involve an inquiry into the ‘legality’ of a decision or the ‘decision-making process’, and not the ‘decision itself’ or its ‘merits’ – let us call this the ‘Distinction’. This article argues that the Distinction should be expunged from Singapore law. The Distinction has its roots in English case law which aimed to prevent the courts from arbitrarily substituting their decision for the executive's by reason of mere disagreement. But Singapore case law has gone further and treated the Distinction as a general principle applicable to all of administrative law. However, the Distinction is too vague for this purpose (as seen from Singapore cases which have interpreted the distinction inconsistently). It is conceptually problematic, incompatible with the practicalities of judicial review (particularly substantive review as recognised in Singapore law), and has occasionally been paid lip service but not followed in substance. The Distinction cannot form a coherent principle to guide the courts and ought to be replaced by a more nuanced application of constitutional principles relevant to determining the appropriate scope of review. Whatever these principles may be, and however they are to be balanced, the Distinction can be but an over-inclusive rough approximation of them which hampers the development of the law.

Administrative Law

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Timothy Endicott
Keyword(s):  
Judicial Review ◽  
Common Law ◽  
Administrative Law ◽  
Public Law ◽  
First Century ◽  
Government Agencies ◽  
Private Law ◽  
The Subject ◽  
The Common ◽  
Twenty First Century

Administrative Law explains the constitutional principles of the subject and their application across the range of twenty-first-century administrative law. The focus on constitutional principles is meant to bring some order to the very diverse topics with which you need to deal if you are to understand this very complex branch of public law. The common law courts, government agencies, and Parliament have developed a wide variety of techniques for controlling the enormously diverse activities of twenty-first-century government. Underlying all that variety is a set of constitutional principles. This book uses the law of judicial review to identify and to explain these principles, and then shows how they ought to be worked out in the private law of tort and contract, in the tribunals system, and in non-judicial techniques such as investigations by ombudsmen, auditors, and other government agencies. The aim is to equip the reader to take a principled approach to the controversial problems of administrative law.

Three Decades of Tension: From the Codification of Migration Decision-Making to an Overarching Framework for Judicial Review

2020 ◽  
Vol 48 (3) ◽  
pp. 401-431
Author(s):  
Grant Robert Hooper
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Judicial Review ◽  
Subject Matter ◽  
Administrative Law ◽  
Migration Decision ◽  
Natural Justice ◽  
Base Level ◽  
Executive Decision Making

Over the last three decades, Australian administrative law decisions about who will be allowed to stay in Australia have led to more interaction and tension between the elected government (Parliament and Ministry) and the judiciary than any other subject matter. This interaction has been intensified by Parliament’s attempts to amend the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) to codify judicial review and the procedures to be followed when making decisions under the Act. These amendments were made with the specific aim of minimising, if not practically eliminating, the judiciary’s influence over executive decision-making. However, this outcome has not been achieved. Rather, through a thousand cuts, or more literally cases, the codification efforts of Parliament have been weakened. Instead, the judiciary has put in place an overarching judicial review framework centred on the inherently flexible concept of jurisdictional error. This framework places equal emphasis on both express and implied statutory obligations and procedures. Express procedures have often being interpreted to include judicially created natural justice-like obligations and implied procedures often including other natural justice-like obligations or at least a base level of fairness premised on the constitutionally entrenched premise that the executive cannot decide arbitrarily.

scholarly journals Administrative law and the machines of government: judicial review of automated public-sector decision-making

Legal Studies ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 39 (4) ◽  
pp. 636-655 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jennifer Cobbe
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Public Sector ◽  
Administrative Law ◽  
Machine Learning Techniques ◽  
Clear Understanding ◽  
The Public ◽  
Starting Point ◽  
Sector Decision ◽  
Public Sector Decision Making ◽  
Automated Decision Making

AbstractThe future is likely to see an increase in the public-sector use of automated decision-making systems which employ machine learning techniques. However, there is no clear understanding of how English administrative law will apply to this kind of decision-making. This paper seeks to address the problem by bringing together administrative law, data protection law, and a technical understanding of automated decision-making systems in order to identify some of the questions to ask and factors to consider when reviewing the use of these systems. Due to the relative novelty of automated decision-making in the public sector, this kind of study has not yet been undertaken elsewhere. As a result, this paper provides a starting point for judges, lawyers, and legal academics who wish to understand how to legally assess or review automated decision-making systems and identifies areas where further research is required.

Administrative Law

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Timothy Endicott
Keyword(s):  
Judicial Review ◽  
Common Law ◽  
Administrative Law ◽  
Public Law ◽  
First Century ◽  
Government Agencies ◽  
Private Law ◽  
Complex Field ◽  
The Subject ◽  
The Common

Administrative Law explains the constitutional principles of the subject. It brings clarity to this complex field of public law. The common law courts, government agencies, and Parliament have developed a wide variety of techniques for controlling the enormously diverse activities of twenty-first-century government. Underlying all that variety is a set of constitutional principles. This book uses the law of judicial review to identify and to explain these principles, and then shows how they ought to be worked out in the private law of tort and contract, in the tribunals system, and in non-judicial techniques such as investigations by ombudsmen, auditors, and other government agencies. The aim is to equip the reader to take a principled approach to the controversial problems of administrative law.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document