Public Law Tutorial Natural Justice Question 4 Hypothetical Judicial review applies in this case since the school

is a public body registered under a statutory act, performing a public function (education, very important). The individual aggrieved here, Cheng Soon, has been expelled from school as a result of disciplinary action taken by the school. How much procedural protection should be given? - According to Megarry J’s classification of forfeiture, application and expectation cases, forfeiture cases should be afforded the fullest measure of procedural protection. In this case here, Cheng’s expulsion has deprived him of his right to education, and this decision has huge impact him, as it is a permanent blemish on his record and may affect his chances of education somewhere else. As such, the court should be in a position to review carefully the decision-making process, and inquire whether there was any procedural impropriety or breach of natural justice. Issues Whether the decision to expel him was properly reached. Bias on Tong’s part - There appears to be an element of bias on Tong’s part towards Cheng Soon. Tong, upon hearing from the one-sided accusation of Bock Huat, did not bother with questioning Cheng Soon, and instead, went straight to the principal to state his complaints and accusations. A case can be made against Tong for apparent or even actual bias. His actions above seem to indicate a preconceived notion of bias against Cheng. His part in the two-man ‘investigating committee’ is not to be underplayed, and his confrontational and hostile attitude towards Cheng is manifested when he interrogated Cheng. In Chiam See Tong v SDP, the disciplinary committee’s hostile and confrontational tone was taken to be bias towards Chiam, their vindictive tone did not evince any intention to find out the truth. In this case here, Tong should have been more impartial and done more to ascertain the truth, instead of busying himself vindicating his own preconceived bias that Cheng did indeed assault Bock Huat.

-

The manner of the investigation undertaken

In order to seek public law or private law remedies.- The teachers refused to hear evidence from two other students whom Cheng Soon had named. Instead all he did was rubber-stamp the teachers’ (one of whom had compelling bias against Cheng) decisions. As such. of Malaya. It is not clear whether reasons were given by Lee (or by the two teachers) when they informed Cheng of the expulsion.The appellant in SS Kanda was not supplied with a copy of a prejudicial report that the adjudicator possessed. - - Cheng Soon had no knowledge of the accusations/evidence against him (e.A similar analogy can be drawn here. This was held to be in breach of the fair hearing requirement. Haridas’ statement is of critical importance here. and one Haridas. there was a failure on the part of the teachers to afford the appellant a reasonable opportunity of being heard. Cheng must have exhausted all statutory remedies first (lack of info: assumedly there may be an appeal to the Superintendent of Schools or Minister) . their decision was based on the testimony of Bock Huat. Cheng Soon was not aware of the allegations made by Haridas against him. and did not give any further consideration to Cheng Soon’s explanation or give an opportunity to Farouk and Wee to give their account of the incident. such a failure was held to have breached the requirement of a fair hearing. - What are his remedies in law? What would be appropriate and why? Cheng Soon undoubtedly has locus standi to sue since he is the individual being affected here. who was the alleged victim. since it was on the basis of his statement that the teachers felt adequate to recommend an order of expulsion on the grounds of assault. In the case of SS Kanda v Govt. Instead. . Haridas’ statement) .g. Any disciplinary committee (or the two men here) should have made their decision after hearing all available evidence. Lee’s failure of supervision Lee as principal should have ascertained that all facts were in order and that there were indeed compelling grounds to expel Cheng Soon. and had no chance of rebutting or responding to the allegations made. Their exclusion of Farouk and Wee’s testimonies appears to have breached the requirement of a fair hearing for Cheng Soon. and expelled a student like he was swatting a fly.

the test for satisfying award of such public remedies is higher than that of private law remedies. Cheng may wish to go for the private law remedy of injunction against the school. And also. - - . to stay the effect of the expulsion.- for prerogative writ remedies. while he seeks leave to apply for a quashing order to nullify the expulsion. leave must be granted to apply for these remedies.

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful