Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Judicial Review: Natural Justice: Procedural Fairness Unit 6
Judicial Review: Natural Justice: Procedural Fairness Unit 6
Consistent Practice
Council of Civil Service Unions v Minister for the Civil Service [1985] AC
375 - In this case, the invariable practice of government had been to consult
with civil service unions before changing terms of employment for civil
servants; the unions had a legitimate expectation of being consulted before
the government withdrew from staff at GCHQ the right to join a union.
Where for 25 years tax refund claims had invariably been accepted without
regard to a statutory time limit, the Revenue could not without notice begin
to refuse refunds on the basis that the claims were late. A different question
of consistency arises when officials in a department make decisions in
apparent ignorance of a settled departmental policy.
Legitimate Expectation
Change of Policy
In Re Findlay, the Home Secretary changed the policy on the
granting of parole to convicted prisoners, causing certain
prisoners to become eligible for parole much later than would
have been the case under the former policy. Lord Scarman said:
‘But what was their legitimate expectation? Given the substance
and purpose of the legislative provisions governing parole, the
most that a convicted prisoner can legitimately expect is that his
case will be examined individually in the light of whatever
policy the Secretary of State sees fit to adopt . . .’
The Bias Rule
The essence of a fair judicial decision is that it has been made by an
impartial judge. This is extended even to administrative authorities that
take decisions affecting rights or interests of people
Bias may generally be defined as partiality or preference which is not
based on reason and is actuated by self-interest (pecuniary or personal)
The second rule of procedural fairness is the so called ‘bias rule’, the Latin
term for which is nemo debet esse judex in propria causa, that is, no one
can be judge in his or her own cause.
In R v Sussex Justices ex p McCarthy (1924), Lord Hewart CJ stated that
it was ‘of fundamental importance that justice should not only be done, but
should manifestly and undoubtedly be seen to be done’.
The Bias Rule