In contrast, Justice Commissioner Sundaresh Menon, in Re Shankar Alan s/o Anant Kulkarni (2006),[28] found that there is a real difference between the reasonable suspicion and true likelihood tests. [28]:101 In his view, the suspicion suggests the belief that something that might not be provable might still be possible. Reasonable suggests that faith cannot be fanciful. The question here is whether it is reasonable for the person to suspect in the circumstances, even if the suspicious behaviour might be innocent. On the other hand, probability suggests that something is likely, and real suggests that it must be substantial rather than imagined. Here, the investigation is addressed more to the actor than to the spectator. The question is to what extent a particular event is not probable or possible:[28] 99 Menon J.C. Lord Goff in Gough and Phang J.C. in Tang Kin Hwa also disagreed, as he felt that moving the investigation from the way the case might seem to a reasonable man to the question of whether the judge believes there is sufficient possibility of bias was “a very important starting point.” [28]: 103 The actual likelihood test is satisfied as long as the court is satisfied that there is a sufficient degree of possibility of bias.
While this is a lower standard than satisfaction after weighing the odds, it is actually intended to mitigate the difficulty of proving real bias, especially given its insidious and often unconscious nature. However, the reasonable suspicion review is satisfied if the court is satisfied that a reasonable member of the public could have a reasonable suspicion of bias, even if the court itself found that there was no real risk of bias. The difference is that the reason for this test is the great public interest in ensuring public confidence in the administration of justice. [28]: 107–8 As of September 2011, the Singapore Court of Appeal had not ruled on whether the position in Tang Kin Hwa or Shankar Alan was preferable. The ancient Greeks called the norms of social structure nomoi, and they were generally understood as laws in the legal and social sense. For Aristotle, therefore, the law-abiding person (nomimos) follows not only the formal legal norms of his community, but also informal social norms. And while nomoi, which are partly conventional (nomos), are sometimes opposed to natural laws (physis), they are rooted in human nature. However, this requirement does not necessarily mean that the decision-maker must meet with the complainant in person – “natural justice does not normally require oral categorization.” [51] It has been suggested that an oral hearing is almost useless if the person concerned has no prior knowledge of the case. [51]: 287 In Lloyd v. McMahon (1987),[52] an oral hearing did not change the facts on which the case was based.
In his judgment before the Court of Appeal of England and Wales, Lord Justice Harry Woolf held that an oral hearing need not always be the “nucleus of the natural administration of justice”. [52]: 670 It was also suggested that an oral hearing is required only when issues arise with respect to the withdrawal of statutory rights or interests protected by law. [48]:128 Therefore, Socrates accepts his punishment and refuses to flee Plato`s Krito in the memorable scene. Socrates accepts the nomoi of his political tradition as a matter of justice because they correspond to an implicit norm of justice, which he recognizes as a virtuous person. Avoiding punishment, even if it is unjustly deserved, would be an act of injustice and therefore unacceptable to a just Socrates. After social justice, we should follow Socrates and seek firm ground on the stable foundation of natural justice. On the basis of reciprocity, if the other party is allowed to cross-examine their legal opponent at a hearing, they must have the same opportunity. [58] If a court decides or decides a matter on a basis that has not been advanced or considered by the parties without considering the arguments and arguments of the parties on the issues, this constitutes a breach of natural justice. [59] However, a genuine error in good faith by an adjudicator who fails to provide reasons for not considering an allegation is not sufficient to constitute a breach of natural justice. [60] This may be the case if the submissions were inadvertently omitted or so unconvincing that it was not necessary to explicitly state the arbitrator`s findings. [60]: 758-759 Nor is it the duty of a court to provide assistance if a party presents its case without legal representation.
In Rajeevan Edakalavan v. Prosecutor (1998),[65] the accused appeared in person before a magistrate and pleaded guilty. He subsequently applied to the High Court for criminal review, arguing that his plea was ambiguous because the judge had not informed him of the defences available to him. The Court held:[65]:19 An important feature of nomoi is that they are limited in time and space. They are the result dependent on the path of successful responses to social problems that existed in the past, as evidenced by their very existence. The existing nomoi of a community succeed because they have undergone a process of social evolution. They are justified not because they are compatible with ideal justice, but because they are our best solutions to our worst problems.