Answered You can hire a professional tutor to get the answer.
Write a 6 page essay on Lord Jenkins.Download file to see previous pages... Sivaprakasapillai, and the fact that he was a member of the board of examiners and of the scrutinising committee. The third
Write a 6 page essay on Lord Jenkins.Download file to see previous pages...
Sivaprakasapillai, and the fact that he was a member of the board of examiners and of the scrutinising committee. The third ground was to the effect that by reason of the first "the maxim that justice should not only be done but also appear to be done" had been violated. The fourth ground comprised the substance of the plaintiff's case and was to the effect that the evidence of the various witnesses who appeared before the commission of inquiry, including the evidence of Miss Balasingham, was taken in the absence of the plaintiff, who was not aware of what evidence was led against him, and that in the circumstances one of the essential elements of natural justice was not observed, inasmuch as the plaintiff was not aware of the case he had to meet. The fifth ground was to the effect that the evidence of the various witnesses was not taken entirely before all the three members of the commission of inquiry, and that such evidence was acted on by the commission, and that this circumstance was also a violation of the elementary principles of justice. The plaintiff further alleged that there was no evidence upon which the commission of inquiry could reasonably find the charge against the plaintiff proved, that the finding arrived at against the plaintiff was one which had not been arrived at in conformity with clause 8, and that the finding and decision were therefore void and of no effect. The allegations of bias or disqualification against Professor Mylvaganam as a member of the commission of inquiry were rejected in both courts as without substance. The allegation to the effect that there was no evidence upon which the commission could reasonably find the charge against the plaintiff proved was (so far as open to the court) clearly ill-founded. The allegation to the effect that the finding was not arrived at in accordance with clause 8 turned on the fact that the Vice-Chancellor appointed two other persons to sit with him as a commission of inquiry to investigate the matter, instead of proceeding to investigate it alone. It was held in both courts that this procedure was not open to objection, inasmuch as this was merely a method, which the Vice-Chancellor was free to adopt if he chose to do so, of satisfying himself of the truth or falsity of the charge, and the Report was a report by him for the purposes of clause 8 although signed by the two other members of the commission as well as himself. The plaintiff having taken no steps to appeal against *230 the decision of the court below on these matters of complaint, their Lordships need say no more about them. There remain the complaints to the effect that the evidence, including that of Miss Balasingham, was taken in the absence of the plaintiff who was not aware of the evidence led against him or of the case he had to meet.