KEY CASE: Ridge v Baldwin
The Facts:
Case in depth: Ridge v Baldwin [1964] AC 40
Ridge, the Chief Constable of Brighton Police, had been acquitted of a charge of conspiracy to obstruct the course of justice. Two other officers were convicted. The judge of the criminal trial had raised serious doubts about Ridge's fitness for office as Chief Constable. The watch Committee, responsible for overseeing the Brighton Police, decided to dismiss Ridge without granting him a hearing or giving him any notice. Ridge argued that his dismissal was void because he had not had the opportunity to present a defence.
Lord Reid gave the leading judgment. After stating that 'the authorities on the applicability of the principles of natural justice are in some confusion' 63 Lord Reid systematically reasserted the traditional approach to natural justice. Lord Reid stated that the right to be heard:
“goes back many centuries in our law and appears in a multitude of judgments of judges of the highest authority. In modern times opinions have sometimes been expressed to the effect that natural justice is so vague as to be practically meaningless. But I would regard these as tainted by the perennial fallacy that because something cannot be cut and dried or nicely weighed or measured therefore it does not exist...It appears to me that one reason why the authorities on natural justice have been found difficult to reconcile is that insufficient attention has been paid to the great difference between various kinds of Cases in which it has been sought to apply the principle. What a minister Ought to do in considering objections to a scheme may be very different from what a watch committee Ought to do in considering whether to dismiss a chief constable.”
The issues that Ridge's dismissal raised were not as simple as whether or not he should be dismissed. Instead there were three options available: he could be reinstated, dismissed, or required to resign. While there was no question of Ridge being reinstated, there was a real question over the last two options. If Ridge was dismissed he would lose his pension rights; if he resigned he would retain them. Rather than being reinstated, that was his primary concern.
As Lord Reid stated: Even if as a general rule a watch committee must hear a constable in his own defence before dismissing him, this case was so clear that nothing that the appellant could have said could have made any difference. It is at least very doubtful whether that could be accepted as an excuse. But, even if it could, the respondents would, in my view, fail on the facts. It may well be that no reasonable body of men could have reinstated the appellant. But as between the other two courses open to the watch committee the case is not so clear. Certainly on the facts, as we know them, the watch committee could reasonably have decided to forfeit the appellant's pension rights, but I could not hold that they would have acted wrongly or wholly unreasonably if they had in the exercise of their discretion decided to take a more lenient course.
Summary:
The scope of the right to be heard can be extensive when matters involved are serious. Lord Reid highlighted it was unlikely for Ridge to be reinstated but he should be granted an oral hearing. Due to the specific issue about pension rights. Hence an oral hearing would be necessary.