Introduction
By and large, administrative laws are an important characteristic of any country that claims to be democratic. Procedural fairness refers to a set of values that are safeguarded by legal assurances embedded in the law and meant to protect citizens. Essential values associated with procedural fairness include an individual’s entitlement to be heard, equality in access to the administrative procedure process, and confidentiality of vital information about individuals. The case of Baker vs. Canada is which Ms. Baker overstayed her immigration visa and was ordered deported is a significant administrative law judgment and shades light on what procedural fairness is all about. In the case, Ms. Baker challenged a decision to deport her and cited unfairness in the process as the reason for her objection.
Administrative law is made up of laws, processes, and legal institutions that largely control the operations of government agencies. The principles of administrative law are relevant to every democratic process since they are used to make important decisions that affect the day-to-day lives of people in the society. Administrative law is democracy and a fair process rather than a fair outcome.
Discretion and how Courts Can Assess Discretion
Discretion simply implies judgment and is part of what we do quite often. In the criminal justice system, discretion refers to the kind of judgment that is realized through the application of principles, values, and relevant facts. Allegedly, the use of discretion in the criminal justice system is needed since the law can sometimes be a stumbling block to the administration of justices and fairness in legal matters. Rather than subject victims to unfair treatment, judges may exercise discretion regarding matters brought before them in a court of law. To a large extent, the concept of discretion refers to decisions where the law does not dictate a specific outcome.
Apart from judges, law enforcers exercise discretion whenever they have to arrest a suspected criminal. In order to ensure fairness, there have been efforts to control how decision makers apply their discretionary powers in the criminal justice system (Ferrall 239). Apparently, it is necessary to determine whether too little or too much discretion should be permitted. An example of a relevant case is that of Baker vs. Canada. When Ms. Baker went to court to object the decision to deport her, improper exercise of governmental discretion was among the issues that were considered by the court. In its ruling, the court considered the fact that the decision to deport her was made without any consideration for the interests of her children born in Canada.
Credibility and how Courts can Assess Credibility
The issue of credibility applies every single day as individuals seek to ascertain the trustworthiness of messages received time and again. Drawing from a study by Spellman and Tenney (168), judges should be allowed enough time to assess the integrity of witnesses. In determining the credibility of a witness, the trier of a case may undertake to interview him or her on the witness stand. The integrity of a witness may be determined through a consideration of various key characteristics.
Evidently, there are physical characteristics that can interfere with a person’s credibility. It is helpful to observe a person’s body language or speech, his or her confidence, and the accuracy of the testimony presented. Lack of consistency in statements usually points to the fact that a given witness is lying and hence lacks credibility. Arguably, an individual’s confidence level plays a very important role in determining how credible he or she is. Trust is equally an important consideration in the assessment of credibility.
An example of a case relevant to the issue of credibility is that of Khan vs. University of Ottawa in which a law student, Nalini Khan, failed an exam in her second year of study. In process of deciding on the matter, the decision was made without getting Khan to appear before those who were deciding on her case. The key concern in the case was credibility and it was necessary for Khan to appear in person before those deciding on her case in order to establish whether she was lying or telling the truth. In cases where credibility plays an important role, it is imperative to have an oral hearing. Those whose credibility is to be assessed must be given an opportunity to clearly state their position.
Bias and how it is Determined
In general, bias is mostly associated with absence of objectivity or impartiality. It denotes a state of mind that is in one way or another predisposed to a particular result. Bias involves being concerned about the sincerity of the other person in a given scenario. The only way to deal with any form of bias is to ensure that decisions are made based on facts rather than feelings or assumptions. In cases where bias may influence the final outcome, it possible for one to request the removal of people with vested interests from a team that is meant to decide on the case.
A relevant example is a case about Zundel vs. Canada in which Zundel’s lawyer relied on a court decision that was released during the hearing into the human rights complaints against him. Equally important is whether there was an arms length relationship between the tribunal and the Canadian Human Rights Commission. Citing structural defects in the case, Zundel’s lawyer asked the tribunal investigating the matter to dissolve itself. According to Zundel’s lawyer, there was a very high likelihood that the final decision of the tribunal would be compromised. Consequently, dissolution of the tribunal was regarded as the most appropriate thing to do at the time.
Extent of Duty to Give Reasons
In English vs. Emery case, the Court of Appeal had an opportunity to hear three different appeals that challenged the adequacy of reasons given by judges in arriving at their decisions (Crowley 321). Arguably, the extent of duty or the reach of what is needed for it to be fulfilled is largely dependent on the subject matter under consideration. Where there are clear factual disputes, for example, a judge is permitted to make a decision based on his or her judgment of who is telling the truth. However, in the event that a dispute involves some level of intellectual exchanges, it is necessary for a judge to make his or her ruling based on the facts canvassed before and a reason must be given to explain the decision or ruling arrived at.
Conclusion
In view of what has been discussed in this paper, it is obvious that administrative law plays a very critical role in our society today. Among other things, it exists to create a level play ground and ensure equality for all regardless of their background or status in life.
Works Cited
Crowley, Daniel. “The Duty to Give Reasons: English v. Emery Reimbold & Strick Ltd.” Arbitration 68.3 (2002): 321 – 324. Print.
Ferrall, Bard. “Criminal Law and Criminology: A Survey of Recent Books.” Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, 94.1. (2003): 239 – 242. Print.
Spellman, Barbara and Elizabeth Tenney. Credible Testimony In and Out of Court. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 17.2 (2010): 168 – 173. Print.