law natural justice
March 2013 (Q1)
This question is related to natural justice. In natural justice there are two main point of natural justice : Audi Alterm Partem (right to be heard) and Nemo Judex In Causa Sua (rules against bias). In Badrul issues there are several cases that Badrul must to know:-
a) Whether he knew about the charge and consequence of the charge
b) Whether the sufficient time was given to him
c) Whether he was allowed to bring witness
d) Whether there was a bias in his case.
The first issue is about the charge and consequence of the charge. In Badrol case, firstly he must received a notice from his company stated the charges against him so as to enable him to adequately defend himself before his company take an action to him and in the notice it must mention the consequence of the charge towards Badrol. However, if Badrol know the consequence toward the charge against him, his company has a choice to stated or mention the charges to him in the notice. According to the Mahadevan v Ananrajan case, the court held that since the student knew about the consequence of his charge, therefore, the charge is complete against him. If this term is fulfill the notice is complete.
In the second issue, whether the sufficient time was given to the Badrul. Sufficient time is important to the accused to defend themselves. In the Badrul case, Zarool give Badrul only 1 day to prepare himself. In the statement “he was given 2 days to reply to the show letter but on the very next day he was called for a hearing” and Badrul requested to postpone the hearing is rejected by the Disciplinary Board. Therefore, Badrol don’t have enough time to define himself. We can refer to the Phang Moh Shin v Commissioner of Police as the example of the Badrul situation. The court held that there was a denial of natural justice because the authority concerned failed to give the sufficient time for the plaintiff to define. Sufficient time is important to the accused or to the
This question is related to natural justice. In natural justice there are two main point of natural justice : Audi Alterm Partem (right to be heard) and Nemo Judex In Causa Sua (rules against bias). In Badrul issues there are several cases that Badrul must to know:-
a) Whether he knew about the charge and consequence of the charge
b) Whether the sufficient time was given to him
c) Whether he was allowed to bring witness
d) Whether there was a bias in his case.
The first issue is about the charge and consequence of the charge. In Badrol case, firstly he must received a notice from his company stated the charges against him so as to enable him to adequately defend himself before his company take an action to him and in the notice it must mention the consequence of the charge towards Badrol. However, if Badrol know the consequence toward the charge against him, his company has a choice to stated or mention the charges to him in the notice. According to the Mahadevan v Ananrajan case, the court held that since the student knew about the consequence of his charge, therefore, the charge is complete against him. If this term is fulfill the notice is complete.
In the second issue, whether the sufficient time was given to the Badrul. Sufficient time is important to the accused to defend themselves. In the Badrul case, Zarool give Badrul only 1 day to prepare himself. In the statement “he was given 2 days to reply to the show letter but on the very next day he was called for a hearing” and Badrul requested to postpone the hearing is rejected by the Disciplinary Board. Therefore, Badrol don’t have enough time to define himself. We can refer to the Phang Moh Shin v Commissioner of Police as the example of the Badrul situation. The court held that there was a denial of natural justice because the authority concerned failed to give the sufficient time for the plaintiff to define. Sufficient time is important to the accused or to the