Talk:Natural justice

No specialised meaning?

Natural justice having no specialised meaning

I removed the following sentence:

Natural justice has become a legal term of art, especially in administrative law.

From my reading and observation, the actual practice and application of law rarely resorts to this concept, since codes and statutes are generally in place and provide more concrete support for legal arguments (appealing to something like natural justice might often come across as an admission that you don't actually have any established law to support your position). Calling it a term of art is misleading, in my opinion, as the phrase has no specialized meaning in any particular field of law, so far as I'm aware. Closer to the truth would be to describe it as a rhetorical term in legal philosophy. --Michael Snow 19:29, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)

---

Natural justice is a legal principle

That may be true in the US, but in Australia (and probably the UK) 'natural justice' is used interchangably with 'procedural fairness', a firmly entrenched legal doctrine (at both common law and codified in our primary administrative review statute) consisting of two primary principles: (1) that a person should have the chance to be heard on a matter affecting their rights or interests ('the hearing rule'), and (2) that decision-makers should be free from real or apprehended bias.

- Queens-counsel 12:11, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Natural justice has a technical meaning in English law

It refers to the two fundamental requirements for a fair trial: nemo iudex in causa sua (noone may be a judge in his own cause) and audi alteram partem (you must hear both sides of the case). Being part of English common law developed before 1776, these two principles are also part of U.S. law.

I added a sentence near the front to this effect with a link to a new articles principles of natural justice.

This is a temporary fix. The two articles should be merged, with the material in this article reorganised to show how the various points made fall under one or the other of the two principles of natural justice.WurzelT (talk) 23:45, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Merge discussion

There doesn't seem much purpose to have the article "Principles of natural justice" and this one existing at the same time, as they cover pretty much the same ground. I suggest that the content of "Principles of natural justice" be merged into this article. — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 17:49, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Relation to principes généraux du droit

I keep an eye out for Anglo-Saxon equivalents to the French/Continental concept of principes généraux du droit and I recently spotted this:

ECJ, Case 17/74, Transocean Marine Paint Association v. Commission

[1974] ECR 1063; [1974] 2 CMLR 459

At the start of the second paragraph of the Opinion of the Advocate General:

It is considered to be a 'rule of natural justice', a somewhat flamboyant and sometimes criticized phrase embodying a concept akin to what is, in French-speaking, countries, more soberly and, I think, more accurately, referred to as 'les principes généraux du droit'.

After reading the intro to this article, I'm not so sure if the two concepts are really akin, but I wanted to note it here anyway. Maybe someone else knows more. Gronky (talk) 15:10, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Principles in Chronic Need of Augmentation

A chronically deficient concept, from my perspective. I think persons have a right to know the identity of their accuser. A right to know the evidence

[the principal evidence at least] being brought against one, in advance of hearing. A right to know the charges to be answered. A right to not be arraigned, tried, sentenced or imprisoned in secrecy. None of these things is protected necessarily, as I understand it, under English Common Law. They ought to be. The age-old adage is apt; the law is indeed an ass!  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.151.210.84 (talk) 11:11, 17 June 2022 (UTC) 

Life orientation

What is natural justice 41.13.68.166 (talk) 16:53, 17 October 2022 (UTC)