Liversidge v Sir John Anderson: HL 3 Nov Cited – Regina v Secretary of State for the Home Department Ex Parte Abdi, Same v Same. In Rex v. Leman Street Police Station Inspector (1) it was held that art. an order made by Sir John Anderson as Home Secretary on May 26, , under reg. There was a 4/5 ruling AGAINST Liversidge in , it was ruled that no court can investigate whether the Secretary of State had reasonable.
|Published (Last):||23 July 2011|
|PDF File Size:||20.40 Mb|
|ePub File Size:||19.79 Mb|
|Price:||Free* [*Free Regsitration Required]|
Reynoldsthe Privy Council even went further than Lord Atkin’s judgment had intended. But the court is also bound andeeson accept a statement by the Secretary of State that he cannot consistently with anderwon public interest divulge these grounds.
By a document dated May 26,and expressed to be a detention order under reg. Their Lordships brushed aside an argument not raised in the present case that the regulation was ultra vires of the statute. The appellant was detained by an order which is regular in point of form. On May 8,Master Moseley heard the application and refused to make any order thereon. Thus it is pointed out that in several places and in particular in reg.
United States users see 17 U. Justice Chua rejected this argument, and accepted the majority decision in Liversidge as persuasive precedent. The regulation places on the Secretary a public duty and trust of the gravest national importance.
Views Read Edit View history. Such an action used to be described as an action for trespass vi et armis. The Court of Appeal decided that mere production of the order was in the first instance at any rate sufficient.
Liversidge v Anderson by Ellie Wonnacott on Prezi
Espionage must be met by counter-espionage. No other meaning has ever been suggested. Your Lordships have had your attention called to the evils of the exercise of arbitrary powers of arrest by the executive and the necessity of subjecting all such powers to judicial control. Of course, if the subjective theory is right and the Secretary of State has indeed unconditional power of imprisonment, it was enough for him to say that he exercised the power.
But the regulation does not so run.
Secretary of State for Home Affairs. Secondly, I shall express my opinion on the question which strictly speaking would not arise till the trial whether the order of the Secretary of State is in the circumstances sufficient prima facie proof that the Secretary of State has acted lawfully and that the detention of the appellant was and is accordingly not abderson.
Liversage v Anderson 
The question is whether there is ground for suspicion that a particular person may be disposed to help the enemy. The order should not be construed as meaning that, if the Home Secretary in his own opinion thinks that there is reasonable cause to act as he liversirge, that is sufficient.
A man who is willing to risk his liberty and his life in maintaining a traitorous intercourse with the enemy is not likely to be deterred from passing on such information. The argument by contrast is of little assistance in the andersonn instance, for the regulations have observed no uniformity of language. Be that as it may, it is at least abundantly clear that the action is of an exploratory nature.
Any article coming into the possession of an executive authority. In all these cases it is obvious that the courts were dealing andereon an objective fact to be proved before them by the defendant, and that their pronouncements would be nonsense if the inquiry had only been whether the defendant believed that he had reasonable ground. The responsibility is his alone. It is sufficient to say that there must be a large number of cases in which the information on which the Secretary of State is likely to act will be of a very confidential nature.
If the latter construction is to prevail, no order for particulars such as the appellant seeks in this case can be made.
The power conferred on the Home Secretary of interfering as he may with the liberty of the subject must be strictly construed, and, in the absence of compelling evidence, is to be construed in favour of the subject: I confess that, notwithstanding all my prejudices in favour of upholding the liberty of the subject, I have come to a clear conclusion that the courts below were right in refusing the particulars asked for.
Viscount Maugham said that the court should “prefer a construction which will carry into effect the plain intention of those responsible” and Lord Macmillan that “it is right so to interpret emergency legislation as to promote rather than to defeat its efficacy”.
It is not wholly immaterial to note that the Secretary of State is provided with one or more advisory committees para. This was not a view favoured by the Attorney-General in the present case, for it weakens his case as to public mischief. It shall be a defence for a person. Clayton 3 ; that the plea must show reasonable and probable ground of suspicion, i.
If there are reasonable grounds, the judge has no further duty of deciding whether he would have formed the same belief any more than, if there is reasonable evidence to go to a jury, the judge is concerned with whether he would have come to the same verdict. The defendant has to justify with particulars, and in my opinion the appellant in this case was clearly right in asking for particulars. Lord Shaw dissented on that point.
The regulation concludes with the following provision: I agree with the decision of the courts below and am of opinion that the appeal should be dismissed. As a result, it would be within the court’s purview to determine the reasonableness of those actions.
Holmes for the respondents. The subjective test would startle any judge versed in trying crimes. If on the proper construction of the section that is the result it is not for judges to attempt to cure it. I might go further and say that the court is not merely an inappropriate tribunal, but one the jurisdiction of which is unworkable and even illusory in these cases.
It suggests that this special procedure was introduced for the very reason that review by the law courts was excluded. In consequence and by reason of the said order and direction the plaintiff was on or about May 29,arrested, and he has since been and still is detained and imprisoned at H. A decision on this question can manifestly be taken only by one who has both knowledge and responsibility which no court can share.
Liversage v Anderson  | Case Summary | Webstroke Law
Where, as respects any premises, it appears to any officer of police of a rank not lower than that of inspector. I need not multiply citations or give further illustrations of what is so familiar in our law and has been for many, many years, but the whole basis in these cases is that the jurisdiction of the court is invoked to decide a triable issue within its legal competence.
Not only is the belief to be his. The material words of the regulation are as follows: Provided that in the case of a man of twenty-three years of age or under the presence of reasonable cause to believe that the girl was over the age of sixteen years shall be a valid defence on the first occasion on which he is charged with an offence under this section.