ASA judicial training day 16 May 2009: the rules of natural justice: what are they and why are they important in sports disciplinary cases?

AuthorBlackshaw, Ian
PositionPAPERS - Report

Introductory Remarks

When sports governing bodies deal with disciplinary cases in which sports persons have infringed their rules and regulations, for example, on doping, they are, in effect and legally speaking, exercising a form of private justice. In other words, they are acting judicially, that is, in the same way as a judge in court proceedings. as such, they are required by the general law to act fairly and properly. In other words, not arbitrarily, but in accordance with standard norms of behaviour that have been established and followed in the past. These basic norms of judicial behaviour have come to be known as 'the rules of natural justice'. and the rules are designed to provide a minimum of legal protection for all those appearing before bodies exercising an adjudicative function. However, the rules have been extended to administrative decisions, for example those affecting property rights (see Cooper v Wandsworth Board of Works (1863) 14 CB NS 180).

In this Paper, we will explain what the 'rules of natural justice' are and how they are applied in practice, with some examples from actual sporting cases; and we will also discuss their importance and significance in a sporting context and the legal and practical consequences which might flow from any failure to respect and uphold them.

We will begin by defining the 'rules of natural justice' and giving some sporting examples of them.

The 'Rules of Natural Justice'

There are two main rules: the so-called 'rule against bias'; and the 'right to a fair hearing'.

The 'rule against bias'

This rule is encapsulated in the Latin tag: 'nemo judex in sua causa'. In other words: 'no one may be a judge in his own cause'.

A sporting example of the application of this basic rule may be found in the case of Revie v Football Association [1979] The Times, 14 December, in which members of the Football Association disciplinary tribunal, who had criticised the former England manager, Don Revie, before a hearing, were disqualified on the basis of a likelihood of bias. as this case demonstrates, there need not be actual bias, but a risk of bias will be sufficient to satisfy this rule and call into question the decision made.

Of course, anyone with a financial interest in the outcome of a disciplinary matter will have a 'conflict of interests' and may not sit as a member of the deciding body, because clearly he/she would not be able to satisfy or conform to the 'rule against bias' in such circumstances.

Again, sports...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT