FACULTY OF ADMINISTRATIVE SCIENCE AND POLICY STUDIES

DIPLOMA IN PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION (AM110)

LAW309 ADMINISTRATIVE LAW

GROUP ASSIGNMENT

GROUP 6

PREPARED BY:

Q5 AM110A

NAME ID NUMBER
GLORIA SYLNA ANAK SYLVESTER 2019658372
ALNNIE KELARA BINTI ANDY 2020906649

LARRY JONNA LASSY THERENCE 2019116939

OLIVIA ANAK JAMAK 2019530871

ENJELLY PASANG 2019509235

PREPARED FOR:

MISS IZYAN FARHANA BINTI ZULKARNAIN

DATE OF SUBMISSION
7 SEPTEMBER 2O21
QUESTION 1
Lily is a doctor in a government clinic. She has been working in that clinic for almost 10 Years.
Recently, she received a letter from the State Health Department (SHD), alleging that she had
breached the Code of Ethics for a doctor. Board of Inquiry notified her that a hearing would be
conducted in 3 days’ time. Lili asked for more time to prepare for her case. In addition, she
also requested for more particulars of the charges against her from the SHD. Both her requests
were turned down by the Board of Inquiry.

Lily attended the hearing accompanied by her counsel. However, the Board of Inquiry did not
allow her counsel to be present on the ground that the proceeding was a domestic hearing. The
Board also did not allow her to bring in witnesses as it would cause a delay in the proceeding.

At the end of the hearing, the Board decided that the allegation made against Lili was proven.
She was suspended from work for 6 Months. Lili now wishes to challenge the decision made
by the Board against her.

Advise Lily.
ISSUES

1. Whether Lily can challenge the decision made by the board against her or not?

2. Whether Lily can take action to challenge the decision made by the Board of Inquiry
against her.

3. Whether Lily can take legal action towards Board of Inquiry due to breached of natural
justice regarding charges against her.

4. Whether notice given by the Board of Inquiry to Lily regarding her charges is adequate
and sufficient in time.

5. Whether Lily is given enough time to prepare her defence regarding charges towards
her.
INTRODUCTION

Natural justice is a mechanism that protects citizens from the abuse of power by public
authority. In making the appropriate judgement, a fair administrative body is required. Natural
justice is confined to the idea of fair hearing procedure. Natural justice represents the idea that
a person is entitled to a hearing and the hearing must be a fair hearing. If a person or a body
exercising judicial or quasi-judicial function fails to observe the rules of natural justice. Then,
there is an error of law rendering an order or a decision of a decision-making authority as ultra
vires. For example, natural justice has been denied to the applicant and the authority has acted
ultra vires. So, the decision made will be quashed by the court.
ISSUE 1
Whether Lily can challenge the decision made by the board against her or not?

LAW+APPLICATION

Firstly, there are two components of natural justice which are Audi Ateram Partem also
known as Rule of fair hearing and Nemo Judex in Cause Sua known as Rule against bias. In
this case, it is regarding the Rule of fair hearing. Under this rule there are elements namely
notice. In the element of notice, it is an essential requirement of the right of hearing. It must be
served or given before the proceeding. The notice is given to the affected person so that the
individual can be prepared anything necessary and relevant matters for his/her case. In this
matter, the notice must have sufficient information that is dearly stated. Based on the case
Perkayuan OKS (N0 2) Sdn Bhd v Kelantan SEDC (1955) 1 MLJ 401, Court states that the
particulars set out in the notice cannot be vague or too generalized. It must be sufficiently
explicit as to enable him/her to understand the case against him/her.
Applying to the current situation, Lily asked for more particulars of the charges against
her from the State Health Department but were turned down by the Board of Inquiry. In this
rule of hearing, a notice of proceeding should provide a party with sufficient indications of the
issues as it will enable her to prepare a case and the notice should describe the offense briefly.
Therefore, Lily should be able to get additional information about her charges since the
notification she received was insufficient, and she needed to ask for more information to
understand the allegations she was facing. As a result, Lily's notification must be sufficient,
and the Board of Inquiry cannot deny her application by requesting more details about the
charges against her.
ISSUE 2
Whether Lily can take action to challenge the decision made by the Board of Inquiry against
her.

LAW+APPLICATION

Next, it also stipulates that the notification must be adequate and sufficient in time,
while still under notice. If the notice supplied is insufficient, it is regarded invalid or void. The
goal of appropriate notice is to provide the aggrieved individual enough time and a reasonable
opportunity to prepare his defense. This was demonstrated based on the case of R v Thames
Magistrate Court; Ex parte Polemis [1974] 1 WLJ 1371, in which a Greek master of a vessel
was served with a summons at 10.30 a.m. for illegally discharging oil. The hearing was
scheduled for 2 p.m. the same day, with an adjournment granted until 4 p.m. and no additional
adjournment granted. He was fined £5,000 for his actions. The Supreme Court thereafter
granted certiorari. The Court determined that R, the Greek master, was not given sufficient
time to prepare for his case. As a result, he was unable to properly plead his case, demonstrating
that his right to natural justice was infringed.
In light of the current scenario, the Board of Inquiry informed Lily that a hearing will be
held in three days. Lily requested extra time to prepare for her case, but the Board of Inquiry
denied her request. In this scenario, the notice must be adequate or sufficient in length, implying
that lily should be given enough time to prepare for her court appearance. Lily, on the other
hand, does not have enough time to prepare for her case, despite the fact that she had requested
more time to prepare for her defense. As a result, Lily's right to natural justice was violated
because she was not given the time and chance to prepare for her trial.
ISSUE 3
Whether Lily can take legal action towards Board of Inquiry due to breached of natural justice
regarding charges against her.

LAW+APPLICATION

Other than that, still under principle of rule of hearing which is hearing. It has states
under natural justice, at least include that, before someone is condemned, he is to have an
opportunity of defending himself. There are four forms of hearing which are oral hearing,
written representation, consultation, interview, and dialogues. No fixed hearing procedure to
be followed. It varies from situation to situation, that’s mean we can use any forms of hearing
and it also depends on the statute in question. Oral hearing is not regarded as compulsory part
of natural justice it is because oral hearing is too slow and costly. However, under natural
justice an oral hearing could be claimed as part of natural justice under the following
circumstances which are, complex and technical legal questions involved, complicated
questions of fact involved and seriousness of the charge. It will affect the reputation and
livelihood of the affected person. This case can be seen Pett v Greyhound Racing Association
Ltd. [1968]. A licensed greyhound trainer was accused of administering drugs to a racing dog.
The enquiry initiated by the Association into the conduct of the appellant was not in accordance
with natural justice. The enquiry might have resulted in the revocation or suspension of his
trainer’s license. Hence, it should be done orally because he was facing a serious charge
affecting his reputation and livelihood. In such a case, fairness may require an oral hearing.
Applying to the current situation, Lily works as a doctor in a government clinic, and she
recently got a letter alleging that she had broken the doctor's code of ethics. Oral hearing should
be held because this charge involves Lily's reputation and livelihood. Because she is facing a
severe charge that might jeopardise her career and reputation, the hearing should be conducted
orally. If Lily's licence as a doctor has not been revoked or suspended, she may face revocation
or suspension.
ISSUE 4
Whether notice given by the Board of Inquiry to Lily regarding her charges is adequate and
sufficient in time.

LAW+APPLICATION

Then, representation or right to Counsel which is still under hearing. Section 3 of the
Interpretation Acts 1948 and 1967 defined an “advocate” as a person who is entitled to practice
as an advocate or as solicitor under the law in force in any part of Malaysia. The general rule
in this matter is that the right to be represented by counsel cannot be claimed under the principle
of natural justice. Nevertheless, there are exceptions to this general rule which states that right
to legal representation will be part of natural justice if it expressly stated in the law, complicated
question of law and fact arise, the affected individual is not in a position to represent himself
or the affected person is facing serious charges. This exception of the general rule was seen
based on the case of Pett v Greyhound Racing Association [1968], the Court held that Natural
justice required that a lawyer should represent the Plaintiff as he was facing a serious charge
concerning his reputation and livelihood.

Applying to the current situation, Lily was accompanied by her lawyer to the hearing.
Due to the fact that the hearing was a domestic procedure, the Board of Inquiry did not allow
her counsel to be present on the ground. Lily is facing a severe accusation in this case, since
the charge against her might have a negative impact on her reputation and career. It will also
have an impact on her work as a government clinic’s doctor. If the plaintiff is facing a serious
charge, natural justice dictates that she be represented by a lawyer. Hence, Lily has a legal right
to be represented by counsel because she is facing severe accusations.
ISSUE 5

Whether Lily is given enough time to prepare her defence regarding charges towards her.

LAW+APPLICATION

Finally, received defends or rights to produce evidence is another principle to further

under the element of hearing. It indicates that during an oral hearing, the adjudicator is required
to provide the affected individual with the opportunity to provide appropriate evidence to
support his case as well as to counter evidence against him. Moreover, refusing to accept
evidence from a victim constitutes a violation of natural justice. As a result, the impacted
individual should be permitted to present a witness to testify on their behalf. Nevertheless, it
also specifies that he cannot present as many witnesses as he wishes, which would cause the
proceedings to be prolonged. He can only produce necessary and relevant evidence. It is for
the authority to make decision whether the evidence is relevant. Based on the case Malayawata
Steel Bhd v Union of Malayawata Steel Workers (1978) 1 MLJ 87, the Company challenged
an award of the Industrial Court on the ground of breach of natural justice as the Company was
denied an opportunity to call the witnesses. The High Court held that there was a denial of
natural justice by the Industrial Court when it did not allow the applicant to call its essential
witnesses to adduce evidence at the hearing and was therefore, denied a reasonable opportunity
of presenting its case. The award of the Industrial Court was quashed. Based on this case it
showed that that failure on the part of an adjudicatory body to permit material witnesses to
testify on behalf of either of the parties to a dispute may amount to denial of natural justice.
In application, it is unfair that the Board of Inquiry did not allow Lily to bring in
witnesses to testify for her for the reason that it would cause a delay in the proceeding. This is
clearly violated the natural justice denying to consider testimony from an individual who has
been affected. Hence, Lily should be allowed to bring witnesses to testify on her behalf as she
had the right to be heard.
CONCLUSION

In conclusion, the Board of Inquiry action towards Lily has breached of natural justice.
The principles of natural justice and the rule of law both aim for a broad scope of equality
before the law, implying that no judicial order or decision should violate someone’s rights and
should always be a fair decision. As a result, Lily can take legal action to overturn the Board
of Inquiry’s judgement.