Abstract

The non-judicial character of ombudsmen is viewed as their greatest asset, offering a more accessible, informal and flexible channel than courts for expressing grievances. Yet the Pensions Ombudsman has objected vigorously to its characterisation in the Chancery Division as ‘not a court’, pointing to a range of judicial qualities with which it has been statutorily invested. This raises the broader question of whether ombudsmen can be courts; a rarely considered characterisation. It is argued in this article that, although some ombudsmen exhibit judicial or quasi-judicial attributes, they are categorically distinct from courts and should remain so. Parliament must be astute not to invest ombudsmen with too many judicial qualities, lest the boundary between exercising judicial functions and exercising the judicial power of the state is crossed. This article also gives cause to reflect more broadly on the fundamental and distinctive nature of courts, tribunals and ombudsmen.

中文翻译：

---

作为法院的监察员

摘要

监察员的非司法性质被视为他们最大的资产，提供了比法院更容易获得、非正式和灵活的表达不满的渠道。然而，养老金监察员强烈反对大法官司将其定性为“非法院”，指出其已被法定赋予的一系列司法品质。这就提出了一个更广泛的问题，即监察员是否可以成为法院；一个很少考虑的特征。本文认为，尽管一些监察员表现出司法或准司法属性，但他们在绝对意义上与法院不同，并且应该保持这样。议会必须精明，不要让监察员拥有过多的司法素质，以免跨越行使司法职能和行使国家司法权之间的界限。