Natural justice in the context of "Procedural justice"

Play Trivia Questions online!

 or

Skip to study material about Natural justice in the context of "Procedural justice"
Ad spacer

⭐ Core Definition: Natural justice

In English law, natural justice is technical terminology for the rule against bias (nemo iudex in causa sua) and the right to a fair hearing (audi alteram partem). While the term natural justice is often retained as a general concept, it has largely been replaced and extended by the general "duty to act fairly".

The basis for the rule against bias is the need to maintain public confidence in the legal system. Bias can take the form of actual bias, imputed bias, or apparent bias. Actual bias is very difficult to prove in practice whereas imputed bias, once shown, will result in a decision being void without the need for any investigation into the likelihood or suspicion of bias. Cases from different jurisdictions currently apply two tests for apparent bias: the "reasonable suspicion of bias" test and the "real likelihood of bias" test. One view that has been taken is that the differences between these two tests are largely semantic and that they operate similarly.

↓ Menu

>>>PUT SHARE BUTTONS HERE<<<

👉 Natural justice in the context of Procedural justice

Procedural justice is the idea of fairness in the processes that resolve disputes and allocate resources. One aspect of procedural justice is related to discussions of the administration of justice and legal proceedings. This sense of procedural justice is connected to due process (U.S.), fundamental justice (Canada), procedural fairness (Australia), and natural justice (other Common law jurisdictions), but the idea of procedural justice can also be applied to nonlegal contexts in which some process is employed to resolve conflict or divide benefits or burdens. Aspects of procedural justice are an area of study in social psychology, sociology, and organizational psychology.

Procedural justice concerns the fairness (formal equal opportunity) and the transparency of the processes by which decisions are made, and may be contrasted with distributive justice (fairness in the distribution of rights and outcomes), and retributive justice (fairness in the punishment of wrongs). Hearing all parties before a decision is made is one step which would be considered appropriate to be taken in order that a process may then be characterised as procedurally fair. Some theories of procedural justice hold that fair procedure leads to equitable outcomes, even if the requirements of distributive or restorative justice are not met. It has been suggested that this is the outcome of the higher quality interpersonal interactions often found in the procedural justice process, which has shown to be stronger in affecting the perception of fairness during conflict resolution.

↓ Explore More Topics
In this Dossier

Natural justice in the context of Due process of law

Due process of law is application by the state of all legal rules and principles pertaining to a case so all legal rights that are owed to a person are respected. Due process balances the power of law of the land and protects the individual person from it. When a government harms a person without following the exact course of the law, this constitutes a due process violation, which offends the rule of law.

Due process has also been frequently interpreted as limiting laws and legal proceedings (see substantive due process) so that judges, instead of legislators, may define and guarantee fundamental fairness, justice, and liberty. That interpretation has proven controversial. Analogous to the concepts of natural justice and procedural justice used in various other jurisdictions, the interpretation of due process is sometimes expressed as a command that the government must not be unfair to the people or abuse them physically or mentally. The term is not used in contemporary English law, but two similar concepts are natural justice, which generally applies only to decisions of administrative agencies and some types of private bodies like trade unions, and the British constitutional concept of the rule of law as articulated by A. V. Dicey and others. However, neither concept lines up perfectly with the American theory of due process, which, as explained below, presently contains many implied rights not found in either ancient or modern concepts of due process in England.

↑ Return to Menu

Natural justice in the context of Nemo iudex in causa sua

Nemo judex in causa sua (IPA: [ˈne.mo ˈju.dɛks in ˈkau̯.sa ˈsua]; also written as nemo [est] judex in sua causa, in propria causa, in re sua or in parte sua) is a Latin brocard that translates as "no one is judge in his own case". Originating from Roman law, it was crystallized into a phrase by Edward Coke in the 17th century and is now widely regarded as a fundamental tenet of natural justice and constitutionalism. It states that no one can judge a case in which they have an interest. In some jurisdictions, the principle is strictly enforced to avoid any appearance of bias, even when there is none: as Lord Chief Justice Hewart laid down in Rex v. Sussex Justices, "Justice must not only be done, but must also be seen to be done".

↑ Return to Menu

Natural justice in the context of R v Malmo-Levine

R v Malmo-Levine; R v Caine [2003] 3 S.C.R. 571, 2003 SCC 74, is a Supreme Court of Canada decision that Parliament had the authority to criminalize the possession and trafficking of marijuana, and that power did not infringe on the section 7 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

The Court found the harm principle is not a fundamental aspect of natural justice in Canada relevant to section 7 of the Charter.

↑ Return to Menu
LINKED FROM (PARENTS)
← Due process of law ← Due process ← Procedural justice ← Nemo iudex in causa sua ← R v Malmo-Levine
LINKS TO (CHILDREN)
Tondo (art) → Lady Justice → Raphael → Raphael Rooms → Apostolic Signatura → Apostolic Palace → Vatican City → English law → Technical terminology → Bias → Nemo iudex in causa sua → Audi alteram partem →