This chapter examines the role of impartiality and independence in public administration. The topics that are discussed include judicial bias, administrative bias, waiver, determining civil rights, compound decision making, and the value of independence, with an explanation of the requirement of an independent tribunal in Art 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights. The chapter also explains the difference between bias (which is unlawful) and a lack of impartiality (which may be lawful), and explains when bias will be presumed. Bias is presented as both a lack of due process and as a flaw in the substance of a decision maker’s reasoning.
Chapter
Essential Cases: Public Law provides a bridge between course textbooks and key case judgments. This case document summarizes the facts and decision in R v Bow Street Metropolitan Stipendiary Magistrate, ex parte Pinochet Ugarte (No. 2) [2000] 1 AC 119, House of Lords. This case considered what types of interest, in addition to pecuniary interests, should require a judge to recuse themselves from sitting on a case. The document also includes supporting commentary and questions from author Thomas Webb.
Chapter
Essential Cases: Public Law provides a bridge between course textbooks and key case judgments. This case document summarizes the facts and decision in R v Bow Street Metropolitan Stipendiary Magistrate, ex parte Pinochet Ugarte (No. 2) [2000] 1 AC 119, House of Lords. This case considered what types of interest, in addition to pecuniary interests, should require a judge to recuse themselves from sitting on a case. The document also includes supporting commentary from author Thomas Webb.
Chapter
Essential Cases: Public Law provides a bridge between course textbooks and key case judgments. This case document summarizes the facts and decision in Porter v Magill [2001] UKHL 67, House of Lords. This case note considers the introduction of a revised test for bias in public law decision-making. The document also includes supporting commentary and questions from author Thomas Webb.
Chapter
Essential Cases: Public Law provides a bridge between course textbooks and key case judgments. This case document summarizes the facts and decision in Porter v Magill [2001] UKHL 67, House of Lords. This case note considers the introduction of a revised test for bias in public law decision-making. The document also includes supporting commentary from author Thomas Webb.
Chapter
Mark Elliott and Jason Varuhas
This chapter examines the notions of impartiality (and bias) and independence. It first provides an overview of the scope and rationale of the rule against bias before discussing the connection between impartiality and procedural fairness. It then reviews the ‘automatic disqualification rule’ by which a decision-maker can be disqualified if he/she has a sufficient financial interest in the outcome of the decision-making process. It also explores the apprehension of bias and the ‘fair-minded observer rule’, along with the political dimensions of the rule against bias. Finally, it considers Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights in an administrative context and when Article 6(1) applies to administrative decision-making. A number of relevant cases are cited throughout the chapter, including R v. Sussex Justices, ex parte McCarthy [1924] 1 KB 256.
Chapter
Simon Cottee
This chapter explores the relationship between crime and religion, focusing in particular on jihadist religious violence. It is concerned to explain why the relationship between religion and violence is so contested and how it has been understood or, in some cases, explained away. It also addresses the construction of religion in criminology as a ‘prosocial’ social control mechanism, and goes on to sketch out how criminology can engage more fully and fruitfully with religious-based violence.
Chapter
This chapter explores procedural impropriety, the final of the three grounds for judicial review outlined by Lord Diplock in Council of Civil Service Unions and Others v Minister for the Civil Service. Procedural impropriety has the following elements. The first is a failure to comply with any procedural requirements set out in statute. Secondly, there is a broader heading of failing to act ‘fairly’, the core of which are the rules of natural justice. These rules can be summarized as the right to be heard and the right to a fair hearing. However, a clear understanding of procedural impropriety, and in particular the idea of fairness, still remains elusive.
Chapter
Essential Cases: Public Law provides a bridge between course textbooks and key case judgments. This case document summarizes the facts and decision in Dimes v Proprietors of the Grand Junction Canal (1852) III House of Lords Cases (Clark’s) 759, 10 ER 301, House of Lords. This case concerns an example of a judge holding a pecuniary interest in a case they were adjudicating upon. There is also wider discussion of the concept of bias. The document also includes supporting commentary and questions from author Thomas Webb.
Chapter
Essential Cases: Public Law provides a bridge between course textbooks and key case judgments. This case document summarizes the facts and decision in Re Dr Bonham’s Case (1608) 8 Coke Reports 107a, 77 ER 638, Court of King’s Bench; Dr Bonham’s Case (1609) 8 Coke Reports 113b, 77 ER 646, Court of King’s Bench. This case concerns questions of bias and, more importantly, the attempt by Sir Edward Coke CJ to establish a common law power to overturn Acts of Parliament. The case predates the constitutional settlement which followed the Glorious Revolution of 1688, but echoes of the principles discussed in this case can also be found in modern case law. The document also includes supporting commentary and questions from author Thomas Webb.
Chapter
This chapter explores procedural impropriety, the final of the three grounds for judicial review outlined by Lord Diplock in Council of Civil Service Unions and Others v Minister for the Civil Service. Procedural impropriety has the following elements. The first is a failure to comply with any procedural requirements set out in statute. Secondly, there is a broader heading of failing to act ‘fairly’, the core of which are the rules of natural justice. These rules can be summarized as the right to be heard and the right to a fair hearing. However, a clear understanding of procedural impropriety, and in particular the idea of fairness, still remains elusive.
Chapter
Essential Cases: Public Law provides a bridge between course textbooks and key case judgments. This case document summarizes the facts and decision in Re Dr Bonham’s Case (1608) 8 Coke Reports 107a, 77 ER 638, Court of King’s Bench; Dr Bonham’s Case (1609) 8 Coke Reports 113b, 77 ER 646, Court of King’s Bench. This case concerns questions of bias and, more importantly, the attempt by Sir Edward Coke CJ to establish a common law power to overturn Acts of Parliament. The case predates the constitutional settlement which followed the Glorious Revolution of 1688, but echoes of the principles discussed in this case can also be found in modern case law. The document also includes supporting commentary from author Thomas Webb.
Chapter
Essential Cases: Public Law provides a bridge between course textbooks and key case judgments. This case document summarizes the facts and decision in Dimes v Proprietors of the Grand Junction Canal (1852) III House of Lords Cases (Clark’s) 759, 10 ER 301, House of Lords. This case concerns an example of a judge holding a pecuniary interest in a case they were adjudicating upon. There is also wider discussion of the concept of bias. The document also includes supporting commentary from author Thomas Webb.
Chapter
Titles in the Complete series combine extracts from a wide range of primary materials with clear explanatory text to provide readers with a complete introductory resource. A public authority must have the legal power to act; if that power is conferred by statute, it may also specify the procedure that must be used prior to an action or a decision being taken. This is what is known as a ‘statutory procedure’ because it is specified in a statute. The statute may, for example, require the authority to give notice of its intention to take action in a certain way, to consult interested groups, or to tell individuals that they have the right to appeal from an adverse decision. If the authority does not comply, then this is a breach of the statutory procedure and may be reviewed as a procedural impropriety. This chapter discusses the judicial review of procedural impropriety. It covers the rules of natural justice; the right to be heard; legitimate expectation; the detailed requirements of natural justice; the rule against bias; and Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights.
Chapter
Each Concentrate revision guide is packed with essential information, key cases, revision tips, exam Q&As, and more. Concentrates show you what to expect in a law exam, what examiners are looking for, and how to achieve extra marks. This chapter discusses the grounds for judicial review. These include procedural impropriety, which means breach of the rules of natural justice, and failure to comply with statutory procedural requirements. This chapter looks at the definitional elements of the rules of natural justice, whether the rules of natural justice apply in principle, the extent to which the rules of natural justice apply, disciplinary hearings, licensing cases, pecuniary and personal bias, whether or not a fair trial has taken place, and the right to be given reasons for a decision. This chapter also considers legitimate expectation as a ground for judicial review.
