Natural Justice File
Natural Justice File
Natural Justice File
www.for.gov.bc.ca/hfd/library/documents/glossary/N.htm
a concept based on the idea of Fair Procedures and including basic elements such as the
requirement that an employee should be given full notice of charge(s), has a right to be
represented and to have a full opportunity to offer a defence of charges, has the right of
appeal, and that any penalty ...
www.siptu.ie/YourRights/TUFGuideToLabourLaw/GeneralInformation/Glossary/
Natural justice is a legal philosophy used in some jurisdictions in the determination of
just, or fair, processes in legal proceedings. ...
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural justice
Natural Justice is a charity that does research on the causes of criminal behavior, and
especially on the related effects of nutrition. Natural Justice carried out an experiment in
the Aylesbury Prison for young offenders. ...
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural Justice
According to Roman law certain basic legal principles are required by nature, or so
obvious that they should be applied universally without needing to be enacted into law by
a legislator. The assertion in the United States' Declaration of Independence, "We hold
these truths to be self-evident," expresses some of this sentiment. The rules or principles
of natural justice are now regularly applied by the courts in both common law and Roman
law jurisdictions. Natural justice operates on the principles that man is basically good,
that a person of good intent should not be harmed, and one should treat others as one
would like to be treated.[3]
Natural justice includes the notion of procedural fairness and may incorporate the
following guidelines:
The right to a hearing in accordance with the Rules of Natural Justice may be expressly
provided for or the courts may imply such an obligation exists. There are essentially two
sections to the Rules of Natural Justice, the first being derived from the Latin maximum
"audi alteram partem" (let the other side be heard). This is the duty of to allow persons
affected by a decision to have a reasonable opportunity of presenting their case.
The second part of the Rules of Natural Justice is derived from the Latin maxim "nema
judex in causa sua" ( no one can be the judge in his own cause). This gives rise to a duty
to act fairly, to listen to arguments, and to reach a decision in a manner that is untainted
by bias.
In my view, the basic Rules of Natural Justice should be followed by any University
hearing involving faculty, staff and students. These Basic Rules usually include the
following procedural guidelines:
The minimum Rules of Natural Justice are codified in Ontario in The Statutory Powers
Procedure Act, and, where the procedural rules of a tribunal are deficient, then the
provisions of the Act should be looked to in order to compensate for such deficiency.
It will likely be a procedural error, unless the parties agree otherwise by waiving their
rights, not to fellow the basic Rules of Natural Justice in a hearing.
3.2 Principles of Natural Justice operate in areas not covered by any rule or law; they do
not supplant the law but only supplement it.
3.3 The following are the two important basic principles of natural justice:
(i) No one can be a judge in his own cause (‘Nemo debet essa judex in propria cause’),
(ii) Hear the other side (‘Audi Alteram Partem’).
3.4 The principle, ‘No one can be a judge in his own cause’ implies that the accuser
must not sit in judgment on the accused. The judge can under no circumstances combine
in himself the roles of judge and jury, of judge and witness or judge and prosecutor. He
must be totally free from any bias. Bias can be of three types: (a) a pecuniary interest, (b)
a personal interest, and (c) a general interest, in the subject matter brought before him for
decision. Bias is relevant not only in the disciplinary authority but also in the inquiry
officer even where the inquiry officer is a different person from the disciplinary authority.
3.5 The second principle, ‘Hear the other side’ means (a) that a judge must hear both
sides and must not hear one side in the absence of the other. It means that the delinquent
Government servant has a notice of the charges he is called upon to explain and the
allegations on which those are based; (b) that he has access to all relevant evidence that
he wishes to adduce; (c) that he is given the opportunity to cross-examine the prosecution
witnesses and to produce witnesses in defence and offer himself for examination; (d) that
no evidence should be recorded behind his back but all of it should be taken in his
presence; and (e) that no materials should be relied on against him without his being
given an opportunity of explaining them.
3.6 The following further principles emerge from a consideration of what is stated
above: (i) that the decision must be made in good faith and (ii) an order must be a
speaking order.
3.7 The principle that the decision must be made in good faith implies that the judge has
bestowed due consideration to the facts and evidence adduced during the inquiry and has
not taken into account any extraneous matter not adduced during the inquiry and that he
has arrived at the decision without favour to any of the parties.
3.8 The principle that the order must be a speaking order is based on the premise that
whether the judge has considered all the aspects of a matter before him can be ascertained
only if the order which he makes is a speaking order. The requirement of making a
speaking order will minimise the possibility of arbitrary exercise of power as the
necessary search for reasons will ensure reasonableness. Reasons are the links between
the materials on which certain conclusions are based and the actual conclusions. They
disclose how the mind is applied to the subject matter while arriving at a decision.
3.9 The provisions of the C.C.A. Rules in fact satisfy the requirements and the principles
of natural justice will be satisfied if the procedures laid down in the Andhra Pradesh Civil
Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1991 are scrupulously followed.
3.10 The Supreme Court, in Union of India vs. T.R. Verma, AIR 1957 SC 882 has
summarised the principles of natural justice thus: “Stating it broadly and without
intending it to be exhaustive, it may be observed that rules of natural justice require that
a party should have the opportunity of adducing all relevant evidence on which he relies,
that the evidence of the opponent should be taken in his presence, and that he should be
given the opportunity of cross-examining the witness examined by that party, and that no
material should be relied on against him without his being given an opportunity of
explaining them.”
3.12 However, in this connection, the famous dictum of Lord Denning, Master of the
Rolls in the case of R vs. Secretary of State for Home Department, (1973) 3 All ER
796 of the Court of Appeal, Civil Division, published in the All England Law
Reports, that “Rules of natural justice must not be stretched too far. Only too often the
people who have done wrong seek to invoke the rules of natural justice so as to avoid the
consequences”, approvingly quoted by the Supreme Court of India in the case of H.C.
Sarin vs. Union of India, AIR 1976 SC 1686, sounds pragmatic.
C won
Per curiam: Judicial review is not an appeal from a
decision but a review of the manner in which the decision
was made, and therefore the court is not entitled on an
application for judicial review to consider whether the
decision itself was fair and reasonable.
Retrial ordered
C lost
[Comment] This can be viewed as a rogue
decision as it sought to deal with the decision
and not what it should, and that was to correct
the procedure.
D won
Per curiam: The term ‘McKenzie friend’ with its
connotations of a certain status and mystique
should not be used to describe the assistance
provided by another member of the public to a
litigant in person in the presentation of his
case.
Not guilty
Nettleship v
Weston [1971] Also here
CA
Reeves, R v
[1964] CA
C won
C lost
A won