Report No. 69
X. Position in U.S.A. and England as to Court
6.20. Position in U.S.A.-
We may briefly refer to the position in the U.S.A. and in England as to administrative tribunals. In the U.S.A., the Federal Administrative Procedure Act1 contains the following rules as to evidence:-
"(c) Evidence.-Except as statutes otherwise provide, the proponent of a rule or order shall have the burden of proof. Any oral or documentary evidence may be received,2 but every agency shall as a matter of policy provide for the exclusion of irrelevant, immaterial, or unduly repetitious evidence and no sanction shall be imposed or rule or order be issued except upon consideration of the whole record or such portions thereof as may be cited by any party and as and as supported by and in accordance with the reliable, probative and substantial evidence.
Every party shall have the right to present his case or defence by oral or documentary evidence, to submit rebuttal evidence, and to conduct such cross-examination as may be required for a full and true disclosure of the facts. In rule-making or determining claims for money or benefits or applications for initial licences any agency may, where the interest of any party will not be prejudicial thereby, adopt procedures for the submission of all or part of the evidence in written form."
1. Section 7(c), Administrative Procedure Act (U.S.A.).
2. Emphasis supplied.
621. Recommendation of Frank's Committee.-
In England, the Committee on Administrative Tribunals and Enquiries (the Franks Committee)1 plainly stated that it would be a mistake to introduce the strict rules of evidence of the courts into proceedings before administrative tribunals.
1. Report of the Committee on Administrative Tribunals and Enquiries (Frank's Committee), p. 22.