Natural justice

Natural justice refers to specific procedural rights within the English legal system.

It is a technical term used to ensure that legal processes remain fair and impartial. While the term is often used as a general concept, it has been largely replaced in places like the United Kingdom and Australia. In these jurisdictions, the concept is now referred to as the "duty to act fairly." This duty ensures that decisions affecting a person's rights or legitimate expectations are made through a just process. It is closely related to the American concepts of fair procedure and procedural due process.

Natural justice is built upon two essential pillars. The first is the rule against bias, known by the Latin phrase *nemo iudex in causa sua*. This means "no man shall be a judge in his own cause." The second pillar is the right to a fair hearing, or *audi alteram partem*. This translates to "hear the other side." Together, these rules require that decision-makers remain impartial and provide individuals with a chance to respond to claims. If a decision affects a person's rights, these procedural steps must be followed.

The rule against bias is vital for maintaining public confidence in the legal system. If people believe a judge is unfair, they lose trust in the law. Lord Hewart, a former Lord Chief Justice, famously stated that justice must not only be done, but must manifestly be seen to be done. Lord Denning also noted that confidence in justice is destroyed when people suspect a judge is biased. To prevent this, people are barred from deciding cases where bias exists or might be suspected. This applies to courts, tribunals, and even private arbitrators.

Bias can take three distinct forms: actual, imputed, or apparent. Actual bias occurs when a decision-maker is truly prejudiced toward or against a party. This is very difficult to prove in a legal setting. Imputed bias is different because it is often automatic. It occurs when a judge has a direct interest in the outcome, such as a financial or property interest. Once imputed bias is shown, the decision is considered void without further investigation.

History provides clear examples of how imputed bias works. In the 1852 case *Dimes v Grand Junction Canal*, the Lord Chancellor, Lord Cottenham, was disqualified. It was discovered that he owned shares in the canal company involved in the suit. Because he had a pecuniary interest, or money interest, his disqualification was automatic. Another example occurred in 1999 during the case involving Senator Augusto Pinochet.

A judge named Lord Hoffmann was disqualified because he was a director of a company connected to Amnesty International. This showed that even personal, non-financial interests can trigger automatic disqualification.

Apparent bias occurs when a decision-maker does not have a direct interest, but their behavior creates a suspicion of unfairness. Different legal systems use different tests to identify this. The "real likelihood of bias" test looks at whether the facts suggest a real danger of bias. The "reasonable suspicion of bias" test asks if a fair-minded person would suspect the trial is unfair. In the United Kingdom, the courts use the "real possibility of bias" test. Established in the case *Porter v Magill* (2001), this test asks what a fair-minded and informed observer would conclude after looking at the facts.

The requirements of the duty to act fairly can change depending on the context. In the 1999 case *Baker v Canada*, the Supreme Court of Canada explained that fairness depends on many factors. These include the nature of the decision and the importance of that decision to the individual. Some decisions, like those made by public authorities on general legislative matters, may not require the same level of fairness as specific administrative acts.

Ultimately, these rules connect legal procedure to broader moral principles, ensuring that power is exercised with accountability and respect for individual rights.