Right of Fair Hearing/Right of Reasons

Question 1

Ridge v Baldwin

Answer 1

If the administrative decision affects C’s rights, interests or legitimate expectations, he will have a right to be heard

Question 2

What is distinctive about oral hearings?

Answer 2

Lord Bingham – oral hearings are distinctive because they facilitate dynamic and immediate interchange between C and the decision-maker so that C can develop and adapt his arguments on the spot

Question 3

When are courts more likely to recognise a right to oral rather than merely written representations?

Answer 3

Smith - where the case turns on disputed questions of fact or a witness’ credibility and truthfulness

Question 4

Tarrant

Answer 4

if the case involves complex questions of law legal representation may be required, but this is not true for cases involving straightforward allegations of fact

Question 5

Roberts v Parole Board

Answer 5

Approved “special advocate” arrangements where strong justification was provided and the alternative arrangements ensured a minimum acceptable level of fairness

Question 6

AF (No.3) - special note?

Answer 6

The individual must always be given enough info to enable her to facilitate an effective challenge to the case against her, even if she has to do so via a special advocate (NOTE: Art.6(1) was relevant here!)

Question 7

W (Algeria) - contrast AF

Answer 7

An Act of Parliament can displace common law principles of fairness if sufficiently clear, even if this denies C the right to know even the gist of the case against them (contrast AF because Art.6(1) was not applicable!)

Question 8

Doody

Answer 8

There is no general legal duty to give reasons for administrative decisions

Question 9

When will the common law impose a duty to give reasons?

Answer 9

• Doody – where there is an important right or interest at stake
• Institutes of Dental Surgery – where the decision is aberrant (inexplicable and against evidence)
o Where there is a legitimate expectation that reasons will be given

Question 10

What does a duty to give reasons entail, and why?

Answer 10

o Reasons must enable people to understand why the decision was reached and what the conclusions were on main points of controversy
o They need only refer to the main issues, not all material considerations (it would be too burdensome to require D to give detailed reasons)

Question 11

What happens if the decision-maker refuses to give reasons?

Answer 11

Padfield - this does NOT preclude judicial scrutiny of his decisions and may even lead the court to draw negative inferences (e.g. that that they are bad ones based on irrelevant considerations)

Lornho - if all the evidence points overwhelmingly towards another decision and the minister fails to explain why he did not take that route, he cannot complain if the court infers he has no reasons