Please enable JavaScript.

Coggle requires JavaScript to display documents.

Fair Procedures - Coggle Diagram

- - - - actual bias
        
        court or tribunal favours one of the parties
      - objective bias
        
        no bias required but due to proximity a resonable man might perceive bias
        
        Bula v Tara Mines prior to being a judge, acted for one of the parties in proceedings between two parties - held pre-existing legal relationship by itself not sufficient - need extra factors - consider how long relationship for, how recent and if issue still alive
        
        Keegan v District Judge look at lenght of relationship, acted for them 7 times, was sufficient - objectively - prior knowledge of client
        
        Dublin Wellwoman Centre v Ireland would a reasonable person perceive bias
        
        Kelly v Minister for Agriculture decision to dismiss harbour master after complaints, had to be done by executive, was done, one of the ministers who took part in decision making was a complainer - breached fair procedures
      - O'Donoghue v Vetinary Council test is - lack of impartiality and coming to to case with prior knowledge
      - West Donegal Land League important to object at the time
- - - - Garvey v Ireland removal of Garda Commissioner, told to resign or be removed, refused to resigned so was removed - SC - no fair procedures followed - failed to give proper notice, no reasons, no opportunity to make representations
      - Delway Investments v NAMA read fair proceudres into act act (otherwise unconstitutional) - entitled to prior notice
    - - Cassidy v Castle Shannon Banquet no opportunity to make submission
      - Shatter v Guerin right to be heard in preliminary inquiry if commenting on him
    - - Cassidy v Shannon Banquet non disclosure of medical report breached fair procedures
      - Tierney v An Post failure to give evidence access to evidence breaches fair procedures
      - P v Minister for Justice naturalisation application refused due to national security considerations - court recognised can be restricted - should be done by minimum extent necessary
    - - Gallagher v Revenue Commissioner clear conflict in vidence meant cross examination necessary
      - A Worker v A hospital restriction justified, sexual abuse of patient in fragile mental state, could only be doen by trained people
      - Borges v Fitness professional complaint about doctor, witnesses refused to come to Ireland, right to accused to cross-examine
      - Haughey
    - - Judge decision
        
        O'Mahony v Judge Ballagh don't need to give extensive judgment, sufficient if provide some reasons
        
        Kenny v Coughlan guidelines on when reasons necessary
        
        make it clear what arguments you rejected or accepted
        
        give reasons for rejecting or accepting arguments
        
        take into account the context and remedies available
        
        if case straighforward may just have to accept or reject evidence
        
        S v Minister for Justice and Equality sufficient if address every point raised by appellant
      - administrative decision
        
        Meadows v Minister for Justice applied for asylum due to risk of genital mutilation, minister refused to give reasons - held decision effecting rights and obligations should at least disclose essential rational
        
        Mallak refused citizenship, held -n eed to know reason for rejection
        
        McEnery garda dismissed for assaulting officer, commissioner required to consider submissions before making final decision
        
        Connelly v An Bord Pleanala duty to give reasons depends on case such as subject of decision, stage and any statutory framework. purpose is to allow person to understand whether worth it to make an appeal - reasons don't all have to be in final document
    - - Flanagan v UCD should have been informed had a right to representation considering seriousness of allegations
      - McKelvey v Iarnrod Eireann allegation of company fraud and theft by using company credit card, rightfully refused legal representation only required in exceptional cases