|
Review - Grounds
COMMENT
I use the term 'review' to apply to all 'second-cracks' at legal decisions: ie. appeals (from both administrative and court hearings), judicial reviews, administrative reconsiderations - and even court re-openings and set-asides. 'Review grounds' - regardless of which of these procedural regimes they emanate from - have the potential for cross-over use in any other procedural regime. For example, an upheld civil appeal case grounded in the judge improperly restricted cross-examination may be useful in a JR of an administrative tribunal where the same, or similar, error occured.
A canvass of the below review grounds demonstrates that they pretty much address the same things: ie. procedural and evidentiary grounds of review, in whatever procedural regime you are located in. They all deal with one basic common law model of fact-finding and legal decision-making: ie. 'hearings', also called trials in some court contexts. The basic 'hearing', despite it's many variations in different procedural regimes - share the same elements, dynamics and - most importantly here - reviewable errors (aka 'grounds of review') which are both predictable and consistent in their nature.
The same logic applies to the rapidly-growing 'administrative law' topic: Procedural Fairness, which has given rise to some taxonomically-unnecessary 'reinventing of the wheel'. You will find similiar, or even identical, procedural grounds of review located both here and the 'fairness' topic. But now the 'fairness' child is growing up, and we are finding 'fairness' grounds of review - by that express name - cited in the contexts of civil litigation, criminal, insolvency and further legal areas. Indeed, the 'fairness' terminology is coming to be applies more than the older, traditional term of 'natural justice'. Natural justice is essential the 'parent' of procedural fairness, and traditionally comprises the related issues of 1. avoidance of bias in adjudicators and judges, and 2. ensuring that all parties have the right to be heard ('audi alteram partem') - but those limits are rapidly falling by the wayside.
I grant that the case facts and the nature of the various procedural regimes may result in different, even opposing, review results - but locating them centrally for research purposes makes it much more useful for users. It's also simpler, and god knows the law needs simplification.
CASES
Errors at Hearing/Trial
Review - Grounds - Failure to Engage With Party's Position
Review - Grounds - Issue Raised by Judge/Adjudicator Alone
Review - Grounds - Make Objections Promptly
Review - Grounds - Trial Management Powers
PROCEDURAL FAIRNESS [this is the main 'procedural fairness' topic which catalogs many hearing/trial errors]
Errors Apparent on Reading Reasons for Decision
Review - Grounds - Court's Failure to Test Issue
Review - Grounds - Uneven Scrutiny (+)
Review - Grounds - Inconsistent Conclusions
Review - Grounds - Ineffective Assistance of Counsel (+)
REASONS [this is the main 'reasons' topic which catalogs many 'reasons for decision' errors]
Errors in the Treatment of Evidence
Review - Grounds - Misapprehension of Evidence (+)
Review - Grounds - Fact-finding in the Absence of Evidence
Review - Grounds - Exclusion of Evidence
Review - Grounds - Failure to Make Credibility Findings
|
