The expression has theological and philosophical overtones and implications. First, automatic disqualification was applied without question in many cases after Dimes.
Experience and the preconceptions that it gives rise to may be permissible in the guise of contextual judging but there is always the possibility that preconceptions may be so strong that they constitute prejudgment.
The second adjudicator had given sufficient reasoning on the key issue as to whether there was an entitlement to an extension of time.
Once it was concluded that the Act did not impose a duty to act in accordance with the principles of natural justice, it was not relevant that statements made by the Minister may have led the plaintiff to expect that he would not be deported.
Actual bias is assessed by reference to conclusions that may be reasonably drawn from evidence about the actual views and behaviour of the decision-maker. Traditional Chinese Medicine Practitioners Board Judicial Commissioner Andrew Phang observed that the real likelihood test is in reality similar to that of reasonable suspicion.
Indeed, even if it were possible, a judge free of this heritage of past experiences would probably lack the very qualities of humanity required of a judge The reason the law tolerates predisposition and other qualities that might appear to offend the rule against bias is practical.
Lord Hoffmann was not, therefore, a party to the proceeding in a formal sense or a judge in his own cause but the Lords thought that the connection between Lord Hoffmann and Amnesty  could still be characterised as an interest that should lead to disqualification.
Such decisions also lacked the regularity and transparency that distinguish them from the mere say-so of public authorities.
Expecting real judges to embody such an attitude would be to expect them to live debased lives. The bias rule is the second pillar of natural justice and requires that a decision-maker must approach a matter with an open mind that is free of prejudgment and prejudice.
The Court of Appeal sought to stamp out this undesirable practice through a dogmatic judgment in the Locobail case,  in which it outlined the various qualities that would never, or almost never, support a claim of bias.
It was not necessary for the court to agree with the reasoning. The test for apparent bias was whether the circumstances would lead a fair minded and informed observer to conclude that there was a real possibility or real danger of bias.
His concern was not simply the ever growing list of qualities attributed to the hypothetical person but the failure of judges who engage in such reasoning to recognise that they sought to cloak a very personal and subjective approach to claims of bias with the guise of the reasonable and objective observer.
By the statutory framework I mean the express and implied provisions of the relevant Act and the inferences of legislative intention to be drawn from the circumstances to which the Act was directed and from its subject-matter: The importance of the appearance of impartiality has become increasingly linked to public confidence in the courts and the other forms of decision-making to which the bias rule applies.
The shareholding of the Lord Chancellor in Dimes was worth a fortune but later cases made clear that a pecuniary interest would almost always lead to disqualification whatever its value. Singapore Medical Council There is also a more practical reason in favour of the abolition of automatic disqualification for pecuniary interest.
After all, they sought entry to Australia and this was the only way of achieving that end. The High Court rejected this argument and held he had suffered no prejudice. Here the issue is whether it is reasonable for the one to harbour the suspicions in the circumstances even though the suspicious behaviour could be innocent.
However, since Article 12 of the Constitution of Singapore guarantees equal protection under the law, it has been suggested that greater weightage should be accorded to this procedural right when balancing it against the competing demand of efficiency.
When a public authority acts on all the relevant considerations, this increases the probability of better decision outcomes and, as such, is beneficial to public interests. Lord Browne-Wilkinson stated the rationale of this extension in the following terms: On the other hand, the reasonable suspicion test asks whether a reasonable and fair-minded person sitting in court and knowing all the relevant facts would have a reasonable suspicion that a fair trial for the litigant is not possible.
A final comment that can be made about the tendency of courts to impute knowledge about legal culture and traditions to the fair minded observer is that the courts have given no real guidance on exactly how much will be imputed to the fair minded observer.
The judge may while at the Bar have engaged a barrister as a junior many times, and even served as a mentor to that barrister, and subsequently have that barrister appear before him or her. The difficult nature of this issue should not be used as a reason for unthinking criticism of judges.
In this respect the second adjudicator acted fairly.
For this reason, automatic disqualification through association  with a political or social cause is little better than a ruler without a scale. This is sufficient to satisfy the principles just discussed.
The court adopted the principles set out in Cantillon Limited v Urvasco Limited  BLR on the question of whether the second adjudicator had jurisdiction. His Honour said that the obligation to afford procedural fairness is not limited to cases where the exercise of the power affects rights in the strict sense, but extends to the exercise of a power which affects an interest or a privilege.
This was enunciated in Singapore in Ho Paul v. Giving judgment in the Court of Appeal of England and Wales, Lord Justice Harry Woolf held that an oral hearing may not always be the "very pith of the administration of natural justice".
The first adjudicator decided on 4 November that no extension of time was due for delayed access to Block Z.The words “natural justice” have specific meaning in the law.
Natural justice comprises two rules, the rule against bias and the rule of the right to a fair hearing. Definition of natural justice: English legal system doctrine that protects against arbitrary exercise of power by ensuring fair play.
Natural justice is based on two fundamental rules: (1) Audi alteram partem (Latin for, hear the. A good instance is Lord Esher saying in that natural justice was “the natural sense of what is right and wrong”: Voinet v Barrett which is bias or apprehended bias.) 4.
The emphasis on a distinction between “natural justice” and “procedural fairness” is. The term natural justice signifies basic principles of justice, which are made available to every litigant during trial.
Principles of natural justice are founded on reason, and enlightened public. Natural justice is an important element of our society. Natural justice provides a sense of security to people.
It is emerged to save people from injustice. Natural justice is based on natural laws. As natural laws are not codified thus it is very difficult to define natural justice. Natural justice is a very subjective termRead More.
Any decision reached in contravention of natural justice is void as * ultra vires. There are two principal rules. The first is the rule against bias, i.e. against departure from the standard of even-handed justice required of those who occupy judicial office – nemo judex in causa sua (or in propria causa): no man may be a judge in his own cause.Download