|
In English law, natural justice is technical terminology for the rule against bias (''nemo iudex 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 while 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. ==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.〔See generally , cited in Shauer, "English Natural Justice and American Due Process", p. 51, n. 24.〕 Although natural justice has an impressive ancestry〔.〕 and is said to express the close relationship between the common law and moral principles,〔, cited in ''De Smith's Judicial Review'', p. 321〕 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〔See, for instance, : "()t has been recognized that in the context of administrative decision-making it is more appropriate to speak of a duty to act fairly or to accord procedural fairness. This is because the expression 'natural justice' has been associated, perhaps too closely associated, with procedures followed by courts of law."〕 and the United Kingdom〔''De Smith's Judicial Review'', p. 320.〕 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,〔''De Smith's Judicial Review'', p. 322.〕 which are the rule against bias (''nemo iudex 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.〔''Kioa'', pp. 584–585: "What is appropriate in terms of natural justice depends on the circumstances of the case and they will include, inter alia, the nature of the inquiry, the subject-matter, and the rules under which the decision-maker is acting".〕 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.〔''Baker'', paras. 23–28.〕 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. Furthermore, preliminary decisions will generally not trigger the duty to act fairly, but decisions of a more final nature may have such an effect.〔''Knight'', para. 30.〕 In addition, 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.〔''Knight'', para. 32.〕 Finally, a right to procedural fairness only exists when an authority's decision is significant and has an important impact on the individual.〔''Knight'', para. 39.〕 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「Natural justice」の詳細全文を読む スポンサード リンク
|