(4.2) JR OF LAW MAKING - PROCEDURAL GROUNDS OF REVIEW (Implication) Flashcards
Implication - what is the modern approach to PF?
that procedural fairness must be observed and ask whether the terms of the legislation display a clear intention to exclude the principle - even where process is private (Forbes), or where government appoints a private contractor (M61)
How do you discuss PF in PQ?
speak about implication aspect broadly (ie, whether PF is owed/excluded). And then talk about the individual content grounds of PF (ie, hearing rule, bias rule)
Source of PF under the ADJR
s 5(1) enables review for ‘breach of rules of natural justice’ occurring in connection with making of a decision
Under section 5(1)(a) AJDR act, it follows that a breach of the duty to afford a fair hearing [fair hearing/bias rule] will
ordinarily amount to a breach of the rules of natural justice and thus establish a ground of review
Principle of procedural fairness
per Kioa v West, a
CL duty of PF is implied when a DM is making a decision which affects ‘rights interests or legitimate expectations’ in an immediate way (legitimate expectations rejected in WZARH), but not when it affects the public generally.
The implication of PF is subject only to a
clear manifestation of a contrary statutory intention (Kioa v West).
Procedural fairness is implied only when
the exercise of a power is liable directly to affect an individual –> “aka singled out”
Policy or political decisions and the exercise of legislative functions are unlikely lor likely to attract procedural fairness
UNLIKELY (SA v O’Shea)
if someone has a legitimate expectation (estoppel vibes) is PF implied?
NO –> (this was rejected in WZARH) eg, the fact that a minister usually suspends w/o pay but doesn’t here is fine etc
If a DM intends to refer to considerations that are personal to the applicant, what does PF require?
that the applicant be given an opportunity to respond to the adverse considerations (Kioa; Miah)
PF may be implied regardless of whether
a hearing determines final rights/obligations (ie, may be implied at a preliminary/investigative stage)
That a “hearing would make no difference” is relevant or irrelevant to the implication of PF
IRRELEVANT and not a reason for refusing a discretionary remedy
[2] After acknowledging that PF is always implied, what must you assess?
Whether PF has been excluded
[2 - exclusion of PF] Principle from Annetts, affirmed in Miah:
when a statute confers power upon a public official to destroy, defeat or prejudice a person’s rights or interests PF may only be excluded by plain words of necessary intendment’
[2 - exclusion of PF] –> what does “ PF may only be excluded by plain words of necessary intendment’” entail?
meaning of words ‘unmistakeable and unambiguous language” used (Saeed)
[2 - exclusion of PF] –> If decision only indirectly affects rights and interest (or not at all) is PF owed?
PF not owed –> decision must affect the individual in individual capacity in a ‘direct and immediate way’ –> must be affected in a way that’s substantially different to the public (Kioa)
[2 - exclusion of PF] –> if clear manifestation of a contrary statutory intention (Crystal clear in legislation) is PF owed?
No PF owed (but note reluctance of courts to read Acts as excluding PF - eg in Miah) –> but clear words or necessary intendment may abrogate it (BVD17)
[2 - exclusion of PF] –> If statute codifies some rules of PF but not others, does that mean the rules which aren’t codified are excluded?
No –> doesn’t necessarily exclude the rest, even if the statute expresses the code ‘to replace the uncodified rules of natural justice’
MUST CONSIDER NATURAL JUSTICE AS A WHOLE (Miah)
[2 - exclusion of PF] –> is an exhaustive statement required to exclude PF?
Yes - Where the exclusive statement is qualified to “matters it deals with” it does not exclude natural justice to other matters (Saeed)
[2 - exclusion of PF] –> In Miah Migration Act had a ‘code of procedure’ for dealing fairly, efficiently, and quickly with visa applications – Gov argued no procedural fairness owed –> was it actually owed tho?
YES
– code gave discretion to provide further info but didn’t require its provision. ‘Code’ usually implies a systematic and comprehensive statement of the law
–> here it wasn’t clear enough to preclude PF as it didn’t outweigh the subject matter in that the decision may put an applicant’s life or liberty at risk
[2 - exclusion of PF] [A - Manifestation of statutory intention] –> In terms of a Minister’s discretionary power, can PF be excluded?
Yes, may be excluded absent a clear exclusion, if the Minister has discretionary power to substitute the decision for public purposes (Plaintiff S10)