|
Bias is one of the grounds of judicial review in Singapore administrative law which a person can rely upon to challenge the judgment of a court or tribunal, or a public authority's action or decision. There are three forms of bias, namely, actual, imputed and apparent bias. If actual bias on the part of an adjudicator can be proved, the High Court can quash the decision. Cases of actual bias are rare due to the difficulty of proving the existence of a prejudiced judicial mindset. Imputed bias arises when a decision-maker has a pecuniary (monetary) or proprietary (property related) interest in the decision he or she is charged to adjudicate. The courts have also extended the category of imputed bias to situations where adjudicators have personal, non-pecuniary interests in decisions. The existence of a situation leading to an imputation of bias warrants the decision-maker being automatically disqualified. Even if actual or imputed bias cannot be proved, an appearance of bias is sufficient for a judgment or decision to be set aside. The legal test for establishing apparent bias in Singapore has been the subject of some controversy. In the cases of ''Jeyaretnam Joshua Benjamin v. Lee Kuan Yew'' (1992) and ''Tang Liang Hong v. Lee Kuan Yew'' (1997), the Court of Appeal stated that the test should be "reasonable suspicion", that is, the court should ask itself whether "a reasonable and fair-minded person sitting in court and knowing all the relevant facts () have a reasonable suspicion that a fair trial for the applicant was not possible". However, after a number of cases which established that a "real likelihood" test should be applied in the UK, the High Court in ''Tang Kin Hwa v. Traditional Chinese Medicine Practitioners Board'' (2005) expressed the ''obiter'' view that there was in fact no material difference between the two tests. In ''Re Shankar Alan s/o Anant Kulkarni'' (2006), a different High Court judge disagreed with this view, holding that the reasonable suspicion test is less stringent as it requires a lower standard of proof than satisfaction on a balance of probabilities. He expressed preference for the reasonable suspicion test over the real likelihood test. As of January 2013, the Court of Appeal had not yet ruled on the matter. ==Doctrine of bias== Bias is one of the grounds of judicial review in Singapore. It is an aspect of the principle ''nemo iudex in causa sua'' – no one should be a judge in his or her own cause – which is regarded as one of the twin pillars of natural justice.〔The other pillar being ''audi alteram partem'', literally "hear the other party".〕 As Lord Hodson put it in ''Ridge v. Baldwin'' (1963),〔.〕 one of the features of natural justice is "the right to be heard by an unbiased tribunal".〔''Ridge v. Baldwin'', p. 132.〕 Prior to ''Ridge v. Baldwin'', UK law drew a distinction between situations where decision-makers were under a legal duty to act judicially or quasi-judicially, and situations where they were regarded as acting in a purely administrative manner. Decision-makers were only required to comply with the requirements of natural justice in the former situation.〔.〕 The position in Singapore was the same. In an old Straits Settlements case originating from Singapore, ''Alkaff and Co. v. The Governor in Council'' (1937),〔''Alkaff and Co. v. The Governor in Council'' () M.L.J. (Law Journal'' ) 211, () M.L.J. Rep. 202, () S.S.L.R. (Settlements Law Reports'' ) 201, Court of Appeal (Straits Settlements).〕 the Straits Settlements Court of Appeal noted that in order for the law relating to bias to apply to the Commissioner of Lands, it was "first necessary for the Court to be satisfied that he was acting in a judicial or quasi-judicial capacity".〔''Alkaff'' () M.L.J. at p. 213, () M.L.J. Rep. at p. 204.〕 However, in ''Ridge v. Baldwin'' the House of Lords found this distinction to be false. Thus, the legal position today is that all public authorities, whether judges or administrative officers, must comply with the rules of natural justice.〔 What public authorities must do to avoid bias was expressed in the High Court of Singapore decision ''Re Singh Kalpanath'' (1992)〔''Re Singh Kalpanath'' () 1 S.L.R.(R.) (Law Reports (Reissue)'' ) 595, High Court (Singapore).〕 by Justice Chan Sek Keong as follows: "A judge is expected to maintain the highest standard of conduct in the exercise of his functions. He must bring an open and impartial mind to the determination of the dispute before him and must not act in any way which compromises the integrity of the judicial process."〔''Kalpanath'', p. 628, para. 86.〕 In ''Kalpanath'', it was stated that there are three kinds of bias: actual, imputed and apparent bias.〔''Kalpanath'', p. 625, para. 76.〕 抄文引用元・出典: フリー百科事典『 ウィキペディア（Wikipedia）』 ■ウィキペディアで「Doctrine of bias in Singapore law」の詳細全文を読む スポンサード リンク
|