SITI FARAHHANI BINTI ISMAIL (2018415554)
NURUL NAZIRAH BINTI ABU BAKAR (2018279048)
KAM1105D (LAW309)
A letter of complaint accused Doori, an enforcement officer in a public service department of
having committed an act of extortion while carrying out his duty two weeks ago. A
preliminary inquiry made a finding that a disciplinary offence was sufficiently made out
against Doori. A disciplinary proceeding, presided by Tuan Bedul, took place
immediately. A charge was read to Doori at the beginning of the proceeding but copies of
the complaint letter and the inquiry committee's report were not supplied to Doori.
Doori want to bring legal counsel to represent her but was rejected by the panel. Doori
is seeking your advice to challenge the validity of the decision. He also found out that
the complaint is a close relative of Tuan Bedul who has been staying with Tuan Bedul for
several years.
Advise Doori.
INTRODUCTION:
Principle of Natural justice:
Natural justice is a procedural safeguard against improper exercise of power by a
public body where concern given to the affected person the right to defense himself.
The minimum standard required by law for administrators to fulfil before making their
decisions.
It will be a judicial review by superior court usually the High Court, on the decision
made by the administrators.
ISSUE:
Whether the Doori may challenge the validity of the decision made by Tuan Bedul.
RULE OF LAW:
1. Insufficient Time:
The accused has the right to have sufficient time in order to prepare his/her defense
and answer the case during a hearing.
if the accused is given insufficient time, the decision made by the panel of a hearing
may be invalid due to infringes the principle of natural justice.
The more serious the case, the more time should be given to accused.
In the case of Phang Moh Shin v. Commissioner of Police, the plaintiff was accused
of corruption. He was informed of the charge against him just before the hearing
commenced. The plaintiff requested for postponement to prepare his defense but
was rejected. He was dismissed after the trial and he later brought the case to the
court to challenge his dismissal.
2. Non-disclosure of information and evidence:
All information, evidences or materials to be used in the hearing by the panel must be
disclosed to the accused.
The panel of hearing cannot make a decision that is merely based on the documents
which are not relevant to the hearing or not disclosed to the accused beforehand,
that contents element of surprise in the hearing.
In the case of Subry Hamid v. Husaini, the plaintiff, a Lance Corporal in the Royal
Malaysian Police Force appealed to the Court Appeal for dismissal due to
misconduct. He contended that he did not know the disciplinary committee was
taking his past record when making decision. The court held that, the appeal was
allowed and the dismissal was void.
3. Representation by a counsel/lawyer:
An accused must be given a right to be represented by his lawyer or any counsel to
rebut the material against him particularly if it involves a serious matter
In the case of Nik Mohd Salleh Nik Mat v Timbalan Ketua Polis Pahang & Anor, the
court was satisfied that the plaintiff was given sufficient opportunity to be represented
by an officer of the Police Force in his trial but he did not take such opportunity which
led to no violation of the Rules of Natural Justice.
This ground is not compulsory for the quasi-judicial proceeding unless it is the case
of the serious matters.
4. Personal Bias:
Personal bias happens when one of the panels of hearing has either positive or
negative relationship with the person being tied either as a relative, friend, enemy,
rival and so on. To determine whether there is personal bias or not, the test apply is
whether there is a likelihood of bias and this is ascertained with reference to the right-
minded person.
In the case of Metropolitan Properties Co v. Lannon, tenants of a flat applied for a
reduction of rent and the application was considered by a Civil Committee. The
chairman was the son of one of the tenants. When the rent was reduced, the
decision was challenged by the owner of the flat as having personal bias. The court
held that there was a real likelihood of bias on the part of the decision maker. Even if
he was as impartial as could be but if a right-minded person thinks there was a real
likelihood of bias on his part then he should not sit. If he does sit the decision cannot
stand.
APPLICATION:
By applying to the case of Phang Moh Shin v. Commissioner of Police, Doori may
challenge the validity of the decision made by Tuan Bedul for insufficient time
because a disciplinary proceeding took place immediately where Doori does not have
sufficient time in order to prepare for his defense during a hearing.
By applying to the case of Subry Hamid v. Husaini, Doori may challenge the validity
of the decision made by Tuan Bedul for non-disclosure of information and evidence
because the copies of the complaint letter and the inquiry committee's report were
not supplied to Doori.
By applying to the case of Nik Mohd Salleh Nik Mat v Timbalan Ketua Polis Pahang
& Anor, Doori may not challenge the validity of decision about when Doori want to
bring legal counsel to represent him but was rejected by the panel. It because it is not
compulsory for the quasi-judicial proceeding unless the case is serious matters. So, it
led to no violation of the Rules of Natural Justice.
By applying to the case of Metropolitan Properties Co v. Lannon, there are personal
bias happened when Doori found out that the complaint is a close relative of Tuan
Bedul who has been staying with Tuan Bedul for several years. Doori may challenge
the validity of the decision as having personal bias.
CONCLUSION:
Yes, Doori may challenge the validity of the decision made by Tuan Bedul under 3
grounds of the Rule of Natural Justice.
