The Rule of Natural Justice
The Rule of Natural Justice
Introduction
Concept of the Natural
Justice
In English law, natural justice is technical terminology for the rule against bias (nemo judex in causa sua) and the right to a fair hearing (audi alteram partem). While the term natural justice is often retained as a general concept, it has largely been replaced
and extended by the general "duty to act fairly".
The
basis for the rule against bias is the need to maintain public confidence in
the legal system. Bias can take the form of actual bias, imputed bias, or
apparent bias. Actual bias is very difficult to prove in practice whereas
imputed bias, once shown, will result in a decision being void without the need
for any investigation into the likelihood or suspicion of bias. Cases from
different jurisdictions currently apply two tests for apparent bias: the
"reasonable suspicion of bias" test and the "real likelihood of
bias" test. One view that has been taken is that the differences between
these two tests are largely semantic and that they operate similarly.
The
right to a fair hearing requires that individuals should not be penalized by
decisions affecting their rights or legitimate expectations unless they have
been given prior notice of the case, a fair opportunity to answer it, and the
opportunity to present their own case. The mere fact that a decision affects
rights or interests is sufficient to subject the decision to the procedures
required by natural justice. In Europe, the right to a fair hearing is
guaranteed by Article 6(1) of the European Convention on Human Rights,
which is said to complement the common law rather than replace it.
Importance of Natural
Justice
Ensures
fairness, transparency, and accountability in decision-making processes.
Historical Background
Natural justice is a term of art that denotes specific procedural rights in the English legal system and the systems of other nations based on it. It is similar to the
American concepts of fair procedure and procedural due process, the latter having roots that to some degree parallel the origins of
natural justice.
Although natural justice has an impressive ancestry and is said to
express the close relationship between the common law and moral principles, the use of the term today is not to be confused with the "natural law" of the Canonists, the mediaeval philosophers' visions of an "ideal pattern of
society" or the "natural rights" philosophy of the 18th century. Whilst the term natural justice is often retained as
a general concept, in jurisdictions such as Australia, and the United Kingdom,
it has largely been replaced and extended by the more general "duty to act
fairly". Natural justice is identified with the two constituents of a fair
hearing, which are the rule against bias (nemo judex in causa sua, or "no man a judge in his own cause"), and the right to a
fair hearing (audi alteram partem, or "hear the other side").
The requirements of natural justice or a duty to act fairly depend on
the context. In Baker v Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) (1999), the Supreme Court of Canada set out a list of non-exhaustive factors that would influence the
content of the duty of fairness, including the nature of the decision being
made and the process followed in making it, the statutory scheme under which
the decision-maker operates, the importance of the decision to the person
challenging it, the person's legitimate expectations, and the choice of procedure made by the decision-maker.
Earlier, in Knight v Indian Head School Division No 19 (1990), the Supreme
Court held that public authorities which make decisions of a legislative and
general nature do not have a duty to act fairly, while those that carry out
acts of a more administrative and specific nature do. Preliminary decisions
will generally not trigger the duty to act fairly, but decisions of a more
final nature may have such an effect.
Whether a duty to act fairly applies depends on the relationship
between the public authority and the individual. No duty exists where the
relationship is one of master and servant, or where the individual holds office
at the pleasure of the authority. On the other hand, a duty to act fairly
exists where the individual cannot be removed from office except for cause.
Finally, a right to procedural fairness only exists when an authority's
decision is significant and has an important impact on the individual.
The Rule Against Bias (Nemo Judex in Causa Sua)
The rule against bias, also known as “Nemo Judex in Causa Sua,” means
that no one should be a judge in their own cause. It requires that decision-makers
must not have any personal interest in the outcome of a case.
Ensures that decisions are made based on evidence and law, free from
personal interests or prejudices. It upholds the integrity of the judicial and
administrative systems and fosters public trust.
Types of Bias
We can categories of three types of possible bias, such as: -
i.
Bias on the subject-matter
ii.
A pecuniary interest, and
iii.
Personal bias
Bias on the subject-matter
Only rarely will this bias invalidate proceeding. It was said Rield, J
“A mare general interest in the general object to be pursued would not
disqualified” in the case of the Queen V. Justice Deas.
Pecuniary interest
However, pecuniary interest will disqualify, even though is not proved
that the decision is in any way affected.
The classic example from the regular courts of law of England is that
of Lord Chancellor Cottenham in 1852, who is a chancery suit had made a number
of decrees in favor of a canal company in which he was a shareholder to the
extent of several thousand pound. His decrees were set aside by the House of
Lords on account of his shares; in fact it was clearly not affected at all.
Personal bias
The third type of bias is personal bias. A judge may be a relative
friend or business associate of a party at there may be personally hostile as a
result of happening either before or during the course of a trial.
The Right to a Hearing (audi alteram partem)
The other fundamental rule of natural justice is "the Right to a
Hearing". The basic principle is that a man has a right to be heard (audi
alteram partem). It means that a person affected by a decision has a
right to be heard.
According to this rule, "both sides should be heard".
A party is entitled to notice of the hearing, since the reason of the
rule is that the party shall have an adequate opportunity of Rebutting the case
against him it might be that this notice ought to inform the party of the case
which he has to meet. Besides being entitled to be informed of all evidence, a
party is entitled to rebut that evidence.
This rule embraces the whole notion of fair procedure, or due process
and is of almost universal validity as an ancient rule.
Application in Difference Jurisdiction
Common Law System
The common law system, also known as Anglo-American law, is a legal
system that originated in England and has been adopted by many countries around
the world. It is characterized
by the development of law through judicial decisions and precedents rather than
through legislative statutes alone.
The common law system began in the early Middle Ages in the King’s
Court (Curia Regis) in England. It was established to create a unified legal system across the country.
Over time, the decisions made by judges in the King’s Court were
recorded and used as precedents for future cases. This practice of relying on judicial decisions to shape the law became
a defining feature of the common law system.
Civil Law System
The civil law system, also known as the Romano-Germanic legal system,
is one of the most widespread legal systems in the world. It is based on
codified laws and principles derived from Roman law. This system is prevalent
in many countries, particularly in Europe, Latin America, and parts of Asia and
Africa.
The civil law system traces its roots back to ancient Rome,
specifically the Corpus Juris Civilis (Body of Civil Law) compiled under
Emperor Justinian in the 6th century.
The system evolved significantly during the Middle Ages and the
Renaissance, with notable contributions from the Napoleonic Code in France
(1804) and the German Civil Code (Bürgerliches Gesetzbuch) in 1900.
Comparison of Common Law and Civil Law Systems
The common law and civil law systems are two of the most prominent legal
frameworks in the world. Understanding their differences and similarities is
crucial for legal professionals, scholars, and anyone interacting with
international legal systems.
Sources of Common Law and Civil Law Systems
Ø
Common Law: Relies heavily on case law and judicial precedents. Statutes are
interpreted and applied in the context of previous judicial decisions. Judges
play a critical role in shaping the law through their interpretations.
Ø
Civil Law: Based primarily on legal codes and statutes. Judges apply these
codified laws to cases without seeking to interpret or expand upon them. There
is less emphasis on judicial decisions as a source of law.
Role of Judges
Ø
Common Law: Judges have a more prominent role in shaping the law. Precedents set
by higher courts are binding on lower courts. The doctrine of stare decisis
(to stand by things decided) is a hallmark.
v
UK: Emphasis on procedural fairness and the right to a fair hearing.
§
Example: The role of natural justice in administrative tribunals and
judicial reviews.
v
Australia: Similar principles with specific applications in
administrative law.
§
Example: The High Court’s interpretation of natural justice in various
landmark cases.
Ø Civil Law: Judges act more as investigators and apply the law more mechanically.
Judicial decisions are not legally binding precedents for future cases. Greater
emphasis is placed on the written law and scholarly writings for guidance.
v Europe: Right to a fair hearing under Article 6(1) of the European
Convention on Human Rights.
§ Example: The European Court of Human Right’s Rulings on fair trial
rights.
v Other Jurisdictions: Adaptation of natural justice principles in
different legal cultures and systems.
Challenges and Criticisms
Natural justice is a cornerstone of
fair legal and administrative processes, ensuring impartiality and the right to
a fair hearing. However, its application is not without challenges and
criticisms. This section explores some of the key issues associated with
natural justice.
Subjectivity in Application
Ø Interpretation Variability: The principles of natural justice,
such as the rule against bias and the right to a fair hearing, can be
interpreted differently depending on the context and jurisdiction. This
variability can lead to inconsistencies in how natural justice is applied.
Ø Case-by-Case Basis: Decisions often depend on the
specific circumstances of each case, which can result in subjective judgments.
This subjectivity can undermine the predictability and consistency of legal
outcomes.
Balancing Efficiency and Fairness
Ø Procedural Delays: Ensuring procedural fairness can
sometimes lead to delays in decision-making processes. This is particularly
problematic in administrative contexts where timely decisions are crucial.
Ø Resource Constraints: Implementing the principles of
natural justice requires adequate resources, including time, personnel, and
financial support. In resource-constrained environments, this can be
challenging.
Evolving Nature
Ø Adapting to New Challenges: The principles of natural justice
must evolve to address new legal and societal challenges. This includes
adapting to technological advancements, such as virtual hearings and AI in
decision-making.
Ø Globalization: The influence of international
human rights standards and the need for harmonization across different legal
systems can complicate the application of natural justice.
Potential for Abuse
Ø Strategic Manipulation: Parties may attempt to manipulate
the principles of natural justice to delay proceedings or gain tactical
advantages. This can undermine the integrity of the legal process.
Ø Overemphasis on Formalities: An excessive focus on procedural
formalities can sometimes overshadow the substantive justice of a case. This
can lead to decisions that are procedurally correct but substantively unjust.
Legal and Cultural Differences
Ø Jurisdictional Variations: Different jurisdictions may have
varying interpretations and implementations of natural justice principles. This
can lead to disparities in legal outcomes and challenges in cross-border legal
matters.
Ø Cultural Contexts: The application of natural justice
principles must consider cultural contexts and societal norms, which can vary
significantly across regions.
Future Implications
Natural justice, with its core
principles of fairness and impartiality, continues to evolve in response to new
legal, technological, and societal challenges. Understanding its future
implications is crucial for ensuring that legal and administrative processes
remain just and equitable.
Technological Advancements
Ø Virtual Hearings: The rise of virtual hearings,
accelerated by the COVID-19 pandemic, has transformed how justice is
administered. Ensuring that these virtual processes adhere to the principles of
natural justice, such as the right to be heard and the right to an impartial
decision-maker, is essential.
Ø Artificial Intelligence (AI): AI is increasingly being used in
legal decision-making, from predictive analytics to automated judgments.
Ensuring that AI systems are transparent, unbiased, and accountable is critical
to maintaining the integrity of natural justice.
Ø Digital Evidence: The use of digital evidence, such
as emails, social media posts, and electronic records, raises questions about
authenticity, privacy, and the right to a fair hearing. Legal frameworks must
adapt to address these challenges while upholding natural justice principles.
Globalization and International Standards
Ø Harmonization of Legal Principles: As globalization continues, there
is a growing need to harmonize legal principles across different jurisdictions.
International treaties and conventions, such as the European Convention on
Human Rights, play a significant role in shaping the application of natural
justice globally.
Ø Cross-Border Disputes: The increase in cross-border legal
disputes necessitates a consistent application of natural justice principles to
ensure fairness and impartiality in international arbitration and litigation.
Legal Reforms and Policy Changes
Ø Procedural Reforms: Ongoing legal reforms aim to
enhance procedural fairness, reduce delays, and improve access to justice.
These reforms must balance efficiency with the need to uphold natural justice
principles.
Ø Policy Changes: Governments and legal institutions
are increasingly focusing on policies that promote transparency,
accountability, and public participation in decision-making processes. These
policies reinforce the principles of natural justice and build public trust in
legal systems.
Societal Changes and Public Expectations
Ø Increased Awareness: There is growing public awareness
and demand for fairness and transparency in legal and administrative processes.
This heightened expectation puts pressure on institutions to rigorously apply
natural justice principles.
Ø Social Justice Movements: Movements advocating for social
justice, equality, and human rights are influencing the interpretation and application
of natural justice. These movements highlight the need for legal systems to
address systemic biases and ensure equitable treatment for all individuals.
Challenges and Opportunities
Ø Balancing Innovation and Fairness: Integrating new technologies and
innovative practices into legal processes presents both challenges and
opportunities. Ensuring that these innovations do not compromise the principles
of natural justice is crucial.
Ø Adapting to Change: Legal systems must be flexible and
adaptive to respond to evolving societal norms, technological advancements, and
global trends. This adaptability is key to maintaining the relevance and
effectiveness of natural justice.
Conclusion
Natural Justice is a fundamental principle in legal
systems worldwide, ensuring fairness and preventing arbitrary decisions. Here
are the key points:
Ø Impartiality: Judges and decision-makers must be
unbiased and not have any vested interests in the case.
Ø Fair Hearing: All parties involved must be given
a fair opportunity to present their case.
Ø Transparency: Decisions should be made
transparently, with reasons provided to all parties involved.
Thank You
Admint3am of LKS
Comments
Post a Comment