Principles of natural justice (procedural fairness)
Principles of Natural Justice (Procedural Fairness)
1. What is Natural Justice / Procedural Fairness?
Natural justice or procedural fairness is a fundamental principle of administrative law requiring that decision-makers follow a fair process when making decisions affecting individuals' rights, interests, or legitimate expectations.
It aims to ensure fairness, transparency, and impartiality in decision-making, and prevent arbitrary or biased decisions.
2. Core Components of Natural Justice
(a) The Hearing Rule (Audi Alteram Partem)
Affected persons must be given notice of the case against them and a reasonable opportunity to present their side.
(b) The Bias Rule (Nemo Judex in Causa Sua)
The decision-maker must be impartial and free from actual or apparent bias.
3. Key Features
The content and extent of procedural fairness vary according to the context and seriousness of the decision.
It applies in administrative, quasi-judicial, and judicial decision-making.
Failure to observe procedural fairness may lead to the invalidity of the decision by judicial review.
Key Case Law Explaining Natural Justice Principles
1. Ridge v Baldwin [1964] AC 40
Facts:
Ridge, a police officer, was dismissed without being given an opportunity to defend himself.
Held:
The House of Lords held that dismissal without a fair hearing was unlawful.
Principle:
The hearing rule is fundamental. Even in administrative decisions, a person must be given a fair opportunity to be heard before adverse decisions are made.
2. R v Sussex Justices; Ex parte McCarthy [1924] 1 KB 256
Facts:
A clerk to the magistrates had a financial interest in the case.
Held:
The court held that justice must not only be done but must appear to be done.
Principle:
The bias rule: No person can act as a judge in their own cause. Apparent bias is sufficient to invalidate a decision.
3. Kioa v West (1985) 159 CLR 550
Facts:
The Minister refused a visa to Kioa without providing notice of adverse information or an opportunity to respond.
Held:
The High Court emphasized that procedural fairness requires disclosure of adverse information and the opportunity to respond, especially in decisions affecting rights.
Principle:
Natural justice requires procedural fairness tailored to the circumstances, including disclosure and opportunity to be heard.
4. Baker v Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) [1999] 2 SCR 817 (Canadian case often cited)
Although Canadian, this case is influential in common law jurisdictions including Australia.
Facts:
Baker challenged a deportation decision, arguing denial of procedural fairness.
Held:
The Supreme Court of Canada identified factors determining procedural fairness:
Nature of decision
Statutory scheme
Importance of the decision to individual
Legitimate expectations
Choices of procedure by the agency
Principle:
The content of procedural fairness varies with context; there is no one-size-fits-all.
5. Minister for Immigration and Citizenship v SZMDS (2010) 240 CLR 611
Facts:
The High Court examined what procedural fairness demands in immigration decisions.
Held:
A decision-maker must provide a realistic opportunity to respond to critical adverse findings.
Principle:
The fair hearing rule requires the person affected to have a chance to respond to information and reasoning that are decisive.
Summary Table of Principles & Cases
| Principle | Case | Key Holding |
|---|---|---|
| Hearing Rule | Ridge v Baldwin | Right to be heard before adverse administrative decision |
| Bias Rule | R v Sussex Justices; Ex parte McCarthy | Justice must be done and appear to be done; no bias allowed |
| Disclosure of Adverse Info | Kioa v West | Must disclose adverse info and allow response |
| Contextual Fairness | Baker v Canada | Procedural fairness depends on nature & importance of decision |
| Realistic Opportunity | Minister for Immigration v SZMDS | Must allow response to critical findings |
Conclusion
Natural justice or procedural fairness is essential in administrative law to ensure fair and lawful decision-making.
The core elements are the right to be heard and the right to an unbiased decision-maker.
Courts have developed flexible principles recognizing that procedural fairness varies depending on the nature of the decision and the context.
Failure to observe these principles can lead to invalidity of decisions on judicial review.
RELATED Blog
0 comments