Regina v Race Relations Board, Ex parte Selvarajan: CA 1975

Lord Denning MR said: ‘In recent years we have had to consider the procedure of many bodies who are required to make an investigation and form an opinion . . In all these cases it has been held that the investigating body is under a duty to act fairly: but that which fairness requires depends upon the nature of the investigation and the consequences which it may have on persons affected by it. The fundamental rule is that, if a person may be subjected to pains or penalties, or be exposed to prosecution or proceedings, or deprived of remedies or redress, or in some such way adversely afflicted by the investigation and report, then he should be told the case made against him and be afforded a fair opportunity of answering it. The investigating body is, however, the master of its own procedure. It need not hold a hearing. It can do everything in writing. It need not allow lawyers. It need not put every detail of the case against a man. Suffice it if the broad grounds are given. It need not name its informants. It can give the substance only. Moreover, it need not do everything itself. It can employ secretaries and assistants to do all the preliminary work and leave much to them. But, in the end, the investigating body itself must come to its own decision and make its own report.’
Lord Denning MR
[1975] 1 WLR 1686, [1976] 1 All ER 12
England and Wales
Cited by:

  • Cited – Regina v Army Board of Defence Council, ex parte Anderson QBD 1991
    Members of the Armed Forces who alleged discrimination did not have access to Industrial Tribunals. The only recourse was to make a service complaint which would then be considered by the Army Board. Anderson complained of race discrimination. His . .
    [1992] QB 169, [1991] 3 All ER 375, [1991] 3 WLR 42

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 07 December 2020; Ref: scu.539818