FACULTY OF ADMINISTRATIVE SCIENCE AND POLICY STUDIES
DIPLOMA IN PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION
(AM110)
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW
(LAW 309)
ASSESSMENT 1
WRITTEN ASSIGNMENT
PREPARED BY:
BIL
01
02
03
04
05
NAME
WAN AHMAD IRFAN BIN WAN ABDULLAH THANI
NUR ATHIRAH BALQIS BINTI MOHD AMINUDEN
NUR FARAH IKHA BINTI ZAIRI
HAIDAH FAQIHAH BINTI NASIR
NUR MAISARAH BINTI ALIAS
PREPARED FOR:
MADAM NURUL SYAHIRA BINTI OTHMAN
SUBMISSION DATE:
14 NOVEMBER 2021
0|Page
MATRIC NUMBER
2019200472
2019830298
2019635952
2019221282
2019434126
QUESTION 1
Kamal Deli was an enforcement officer with the Department of Wildlife and National
Park (PERHILITAN) Kelantan (the Department). He was given a notice to appear before the
Staff Dsiplinary Board to answer a charge that he leaked information of a raid conducted by
the Department of illegal poachers. The notice was given to him two days before his hearing
was scheduled to be held.
He requested for adjournment to enable him to prepare for a proper defence and to
engage a lawyer to assist him. Nonetheless, both requests were rejected. During the hearing,
Kamal was informed that the Department had received a report about his involvement in
tipping off the illegal poachers. He asked for the complete report but the Displinary Board
maintained that the report was confidential.
The hearing was chaired by Ahmad Sado, a senior officer of the Department who is
known to have several disagreements with him. At the end of the hearing, Kamal was found
guilty and was dismissed. Kamal was not satisfied with the manner in which the proceeding
had been conducted. He seeks your legal advice.
(20 marks)
1|Page
ANSWER
Issues:
I.
II.
III.
Whether Kamal is given enough time to prepare his defense or not?
Whether Kamal can be represented by lawyer or any representative or not?
Whether the departmental infringes the element of the charge must be complete and
adequate?
IV.
Whether there is personal bias in this case or not?
Principle:
The principle that can be used to solve this problem is the rules of natural justice. Natural justice
is technical terminology for the rule against bias and the right to a fair hearing 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 while 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
such as 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. The right to a fair hearing requires that individuals should not be penalized
by decisions affecting their rights or legitimate expectations unless they have been given prior
notice of the case, a fair opportunity to answer it, and the opportunity to present their own case.
The mere fact that a decision affects rights or interests is sufficient to subject the decision to
the procedures required by natural justice. Technically in Europe, the right to a fair hearing is
guaranteed by Article 6(1) of the European Convention on Human Rights, which is said to
complement the common law rather than replace it.
2|Page
Application:
ISSUE 1
Law: According the rule of natural justice, the action taken will be void and considered
unenforceable if they not give enough time to the plaintiff. How sufficient the time is depending
on each individual case and there is no specific time given to each case. But as a guideline, it
can be said that the more serious the case is, the more time should be given to the accused.
Application: In answering the first issue, it can be gathered from the fact that the departmental
not give Kamal Deli enough time to prepare a proper defence for himself. The notice given to
him was delivered within 2 days prior to his disciplinary proceedings. 2 days which is in 48
hours the given period for the plaintiff to fulfil the admin's request is illogical because the time
given is too short. So, for this case, the notice can be considered invalid due to insufficient time
given to Kamal Deli to prepare his defense.
Case: To support the above argument is the case of Phang Moh Sin v Commissioner of
Police. In this case, the plaintiff was accused in corruption and he was called for a hearing but
the charge against him was told just before the hearing commenced. When the plaintiff
requested that his hearing be postponed so that he could prepare for his defence, it was refused.
He was dismissed after the trial and he later brought the case to the court to challenge the
dismissal. The court held that the dismissal was void on the ground of insufficient notice given
to him of the charge made against him. Next, is the case of Re Liverpool Taxi Owners’
Association. In this case, the Association was sent a letter to show cause concerning an issue
of fresh taxi licenses and received it on the last day where the Association was allowed to
appeal. The notice was held to be inadequate because the Association was not given the
opportunity to defend themselves properly.
3|Page
ISSUE 2
Law: In the rule of natural justice generally, appearance of a lawyer is not claimable as a matter
of right in a quasi-judicial hearing. But in a case where complicated questions of law and fact
arise, where the evidence is elaborate and the party concerned may not be in a position to meet
the situation. So here it based on the case if the case complicated then they can or need to
represent a lawyer.
Application: In this issue, the departmental was rejected Hashim’s requested to be defended
by a lawyer. In this case, the rejection of the request that made by the departmental is invalid
because the right to be represented was necessary in this case since it could help the respondent,
Hashim to redeem his reputation.
Case: To support the above argument is the case of Nik Mohd Salleh Nik Mat v Timb Ketua
Polis Pahang & Anor. In this case, the court was satisfied that the plaintiff was given sufficient
opportunity to be represented by an officer of the Police Force in his trial but he did not take
such an opportunity which led no violation of the rules of natural justice. Other case is Britania
Brands (Malaysia) Sdn Bhd v Ketua Pengarah Buruh Malaysia. In this case, the court
quashed the defendant’s decision in refusing to grant legal representation to the applicant. The
applicant had requested or an adjournment of the hearing so that he could be represented by a
counsel but it was refused by the defendant.
4|Page
ISSUE 3
Law: According the rules of natural justice, the decision made was invalid if the defendant
failed to inform of all the charges that used to against the plaintiff. If there is more than one
charge, the plaintiff must be informed of all the charges made against him If not, the decision
made may be invalid because the accused is tried without proper defense.
Application: The fact of this issue, the departmental not told Kamal about others charges that
made against him which are he leaked information of a raid conducted by the Department of
illegal poachers and in tipping off the illegal poachers. He was only given a notice to appear
before the Staff Disciplinary Board to answer a charge that he leaked information of a raid
conducted by the Department of illegal poachers. So, for this case, the decision that made by
the departmental is void and considered unenforceable because the plaintiff was failed to
forming a proper defence due to the breach of the one fundamental principles of natural justice
which is the right to be heard.
Case: To support the above argument is the case of Maradana Mosque Trustee v. Mahmud.
In this case, the appellants were managers of a school and they were called upon by the Minister
concerned to explain why the salaries of the teachers in the school were not paid on time. When
they went to explain, the government took over the school based on another reason which was
informed to the managers. The managers brought the cases to the court on the ground that they
were not told about the second charge before the hearing took place. The court held that the
took over was invalid because the managers were not given adequate charge. Next, is the case
of R v Paddington & St Marylebone Rent Tribunal. In this case, the rent tribunal reduced
the rent on the ground that the ceilings of the flats were too low and not up the modern standard.
The court revoked the decision of the rent tribunal because the landlord was not told of the
ceilings issue before the hearing and matter did not arise at any stage of the proceedings making
the landlord unable to answer to any questions relating to that matter.
5|Page
ISSUE 4
Based on the rules of natural justice, the decision will be not legal if there is personal bias.
Personal bias Personal bias may arise in the adjudicator right, or in favour of, one party to the
dispute before him under many varied circumstances such as a relationship, friendship or
business dealings with or hostility or animosity against a party may disqualify an official to act
as an adjudicator in a dispute. Or also known as the administrator and plaintiff have relationship
between them either positive or negative relationship.
Application: In this issue, Kamal Deli and Abang Sado, a senior officer of the Department
who is known to have several disagreements with him. In addition, during the hearing it was
chaired by Ahmad Sado and the result of the hearing, Kamal was found guilty and was
dismissed. In this case, the guilt and dismissal charges against Kamal and the decision made
by Abang Sado are null and void as there is a high possibility of bias on the part of the decision
makers.
Case: To support the above argument is the case of Metropolitan Properties Co v Lannon.
In this case, a block of flats belonged to a company. A tenant in a flat applied to fix a fair rent.
The matter reached the rent assessment committee of which Lannon, a solicitor, was the
chairman. Lannon lived with his father who was a tenant in a flat owned by a company, an
associate company belonging to the sums group as the company which was now the party in
the matter before Lannon. Lannon had assisted his father and others tenants in the fixing of fair
rent for their flats. The decision of the assessment committee was challenged on the ground of
Lannon’s bias. The Court of Appeal quashed the decision of the rent committee on the ground
of real likelihood of bias.
Conclusion:
In conclusion, in this case there is a breach of the rules of natural justice in the decision
suspended Kamal because he has not been given a sufficient time to prepare for defence himself
with only 2 days. Moreover, there was also personal bias when the hearing was chaired by
Ahmad Sado, a senior officer of the Department who is known to have several disagreements
with Kamal. Thus, Kamal should be advised to bring the case to the court for judicial review
on the ground of the infringement of the rules of natural justice.
6|Page