|
Procedural impropriety in Singapore administrative law is one of the three broad categories of judicial review, the other two being illegality and irrationality. A public authority commits procedural impropriety if it fails to properly observe either statutory procedural requirements, or common law rules of natural justice and fairness. The common law rules of natural justice consist of two pillars: impartiality (the rule against bias, or ''nemo judex in causa sua'' – "no one should be a judge in his own cause") and fair hearing (the right to be heard, or ''audi alteram partem'' – "hear the other side"). The rule against bias divides bias into three categories: actual bias, imputed bias and apparent bias. There are currently two formulations of the test for apparent bias, known as the "real likelihood of bias" test and the "reasonable suspicion of bias" test. Some controversy exists as to whether there is in fact any material difference in the two formulations. For a hearing to be fair, the person who will be affected by the hearing's outcome must be given sufficient notice to allow him or her to adequately prepare his or her case; he or she must be entitled to know what evidence has been produced against him or her; and that there must be a proper opportunity to contest, contradict or correct any evidence, state one's case and raise relevant matters before the court. In addition, a fair hearing may also include the rights to legal representation, to cross-examine witnesses, and to be given reasons for a decision; and a presumption in favour of an oral hearing. The concept of law in provisions of the Constitution of the Republic of Singapore such as Article 9(1) and Article 12(1) includes what are called "fundamental rules of natural justice". According to the Court of Appeal, the content of fundamental rules of natural justice is the same as the common law rules of natural justice, but there is a qualitative difference in how the rules apply. A breach of the former can lead to legislation being struck down on the ground of unconstitutionality. On the other hand, a breach of the latter has the effect of invalidating administrative decisions but cannot affect the validity of legislation. More recent case law from the UK tends to refer to a duty of public authorities to act fairly rather than to natural justice. One aspect of such a duty is the obligation on authorities in some cases to give effect to procedural legitimate expectations. These are underpinned by the notion that a party that is or will be affected by a decision can expect that he or she will be consulted by the decision-maker before the decision is taken. ==Procedural impropriety== The term ''procedural impropriety'' was used by Lord Diplock in the House of Lords decision ''Council of Civil Service Unions v. Minister for the Civil Service'' ("the GHCQ case", 1984)〔.〕 to explain that a public authority could be acting ''ultra vires'' (that is, beyond the power given to it by statute) if it commits a serious procedural error. His Lordship regarded procedural impropriety as one of three broad categories of judicial review, the other two being illegality and irrationality.〔GCHQ case, p. 410.〕 Procedural impropriety generally encompasses two things: procedural ''ultra vires'', where administrative decisions are challenged because a decision-maker has overlooked or failed to properly observe statutory procedural requirements; and common law rules of natural justice and fairness.〔.〕 United Kingdom administrative law has played a significant role in helping to shape Singapore law in this area, given the weight accorded to UK cases by the courts in Singapore. Lord Diplock noted in the GCHQ case that "failure by an administrative tribunal to observe procedural rules that are expressly laid down in the legislative instrument by which its jurisdiction is conferred, even where such failure does not involve any denial of natural justice", is a form of procedural impropriety.〔GCHQ case, p. 411.〕 An example was provided by the Court of Appeal of Singapore in ''Yong Vui Kong v. Attorney-General'' (2011).〔.〕 The Court said if there was conclusive evidence that the Cabinet had not complied with the procedure set out in Article 22P(2) of the Constitution of the Republic of Singapore〔.〕 for determining if the President should grant a pardon to a person sentenced to death – for example, if it had not met to consider the issue, or had tossed a coin to decide – this was a breach of law that the courts could intervene to correct.〔''Yong Vui Kong'', pp. 1234–1235, paras. 81–83.〕 The common law rules of natural justice consist of two pillars: impartiality (the rule against bias, or ''nemo judex in causa sua'' – "no one should be a judge in his own cause") and fair hearing (the right to be heard, or ''audi alteram partem'' – "hear the other side").〔Leyland & Anthony, p. 342.〕 The rule against bias divides bias into three categories: actual bias, imputed bias and apparent bias. More recent case law from the UK tends to refer to a duty of public authorities to act fairly rather than to natural justice. One aspect of such a duty is the obligation on authorities in some cases to give effect to procedural legitimate expectations. These are underpinned by the notion that a party that is or will be affected by a decision can expect that he or she will be consulted by the decision-maker before the decision is taken.〔Leyland & Anthony, "Legitimate Expectations", pp. 313–330 at p. 313.〕 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「Procedural impropriety in Singapore administrative law」の詳細全文を読む スポンサード リンク
|