In addition to promoting individual freedoms, the right to a fair trial has also been used by the courts as a basis for building fair administrative procedures. [33]: 402 It is now generally accepted that it is not the character of the public authority that matters, but the nature of the power exercised. [33]: 405 In the United Kingdom, however, prior to Ridge v Baldwin (1963),[36] the scope of the right to be heard was severely limited by Cooper/Wandsworth Board of Works (1863). [37] In R. v. Electricity Commissioners, ex parte London Electricity Joint Committee Co. (1920), Ltd. (1923),[38] Lord Atkin noted that the Act applies only when decision-makers “have a duty to act before the courts”. [38]:205 In natural law cases, this saying was generally understood to mean that a duty to act judicially should not arise solely from the effects of a decision on the rights of subjects; Such an obligation would arise only if there was an express “additional” obligation to comply with judicial proceedings in the decision-making process. [3]:330 Natural justice is an art term that refers to specific procedural rights in the English legal system[1] and other nations` systems based on it. It is similar to the American concepts of due process and due process, the latter having roots that correspond to some extent to the origins of natural justice.
[2] The rules of fair play, originally developed by the courts to review the decisions of lower courts, then gradually (especially in the 20th century). In order to apply also to decisions of administrative and national courts and to any authority exercising administrative power affecting the status, rights or responsibility of a person. Any decision that violates natural justice is null and void as ultra vires. There are two main rules. The first is the rule against bias, that is, against deviation from the standard of impartial justice required of those who exercise judicial functions – nemo judex in causa sua (or in propria causa): no one can be a judge in his own case. This means that any decision, however just it may seem, is invalid if it is taken by a person who has a financial or other interest in the outcome or a known bias that may have affected his impartiality (R v Bow Street Metropolitan Stipendiary Magistrate, ex p Pinochet Ugarte [No 2] [1999] 2 WLR 272 (HL); Porter v. Magill [2001] UKHL 67, [2002] 2 AC 357; Davidson v. Scottish Ministers [2004] UKHL 34, [2005] SC 7).
The second rule is known as audi alteram partem: listen to the other side. It clarifies that a decision can only be upheld if the person directly concerned by it has had a fair opportunity both to present his case and to know and respond to the opposing party`s case (R v Chief Constable of North Wales Police , ex p Evans [1982] 1 WLR 1155 (HL); R v Army Board of the Defence Council, ex p Anderson [1992] QB 169; R v Secretary of State for the Home Department, ex p Doody [1994] 1 AC 531 (HL). The rules of natural justice provide a minimum standard of procedural fairness, and the exact requirements vary depending on the context. The right to a fair trial requires that individuals not be penalized by decisions affecting their rights or legitimate expectations, unless they have been informed of the case in advance, have had a fair opportunity to respond, and have had an opportunity to present their own arguments. 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 trial is guaranteed by Article 6, paragraph 1, of the European Convention on Human Rights, which is intended to supplement, not replace, the common law. The term natural justice refers to the fundamental principles of justice provided to each litigant during the trial. The principles of natural justice are based on reason and informed public policy.
These principles are adapted to the circumstances of all cases. The maxim of adversarial procedure, which implies the right to be heard) and nemo judex in causa sua, meaning that no one can judge his own case, are the most important principles of natural justice. The principles of natural justice protect against the arbitrary exercise of power by ensuring fairness and apply to decisions of all government agencies and tribunals, as well as judgments of all courts that may be declared ultra vires if found to be contrary to natural justice. When I was in Portugal, there was the Court of Justice of the Inquisition. The principles of natural justice have been adopted and followed by the judiciary in order to protect public rights against arbitrary decision by the administrative authority. It`s easy to see that the rule of natural justice includes the concept of fairness: you stay alive and support to protect fair practices. The above rules make it clear that the judiciary must be free from bias and must dispense justice in a clean and impartial manner. Judges must take legal action and decide the case without regard to anything other than the principles of evidence. However, this requirement does not necessarily mean that the decision-maker must meet with the complainant in person – “natural justice does not normally require oral categorization.” [51] It has been suggested that an oral hearing is almost useless if the person concerned has no prior knowledge of the case. [51]: 287 In Lloyd v.
McMahon (1987),[52] an oral hearing did not change the facts on which the case was based. In his judgment before the Court of Appeal of England and Wales, Lord Justice Harry Woolf held that an oral hearing need not always be the “nucleus of the natural administration of justice”. [52]: 670 It was also suggested that an oral hearing is required only when issues arise with respect to the withdrawal of statutory rights or interests protected by law. [48]:128 Second, the “bias rule” generally states that the panel must be free from bias in its decision-making. The decision should be made in a free and fair manner that can be consistent with the principle of natural justice. The principles of natural justice are the rules established by the courts such as the minimum protection of the rights of individuals against arbitrary procedure that may be issued by a judicial, quasi-judicial and administrative authority when making an order affecting those rights. There are cases where a disqualified arbitrator cannot be replaced because no one else has the right to act. Moreover, preliminary decisions do not normally trigger the duty to act in good faith, but decisions of a more definitive nature may have such an effect. [10]: para. 30 In addition, whether a duty to act is appropriate depends on the relationship between the authority and the individual. There is no obligation if the relationship is one between master and servant, or if the person holds a position at will of authority. On the other hand, there is a duty to act fairly if the person can only be removed for cause.
[10] : para. 32 Finally, the right to a fair trial exists only if the decision of a public authority is significant and has a significant impact on the individual. [10]: Paragraph 39 In such cases, there are strong political considerations that support the principle that a trial can never be considered fair if a person is detained in ignorance of the proceedings against him. First, because reasonable grounds to suspect that a person is involved in terrorist activities can range from irrefutable evidence to innocent misinterpretation of facts that can be explained by the individual, in many cases it is impossible for courts to be sure that disclosure of the evidence makes no difference to the plaintiff.