Home Random Page


CATEGORIES:

BiologyChemistryConstructionCultureEcologyEconomyElectronicsFinanceGeographyHistoryInformaticsLawMathematicsMechanicsMedicineOtherPedagogyPhilosophyPhysicsPolicyPsychologySociologySportTourism






Liversidge v Anderson

 

In that year a case came before the House of Lords. During both world wars the Home Secretary (as part of the Executive) took power under laws called Defence Regulations to detain without trial any 'person of hostile origin or associations', or anyone whose conduct was 'prejudicial to the safety of the country'.

John Perizweig, also known as Robert Liversidge, was arrested and imprisoned on the orders of the Home Secretary (Sir John Anderson). Anderson had him detained under the Defence Regulations, but gave no reasons for this. Liversidge brought an action in the courts claiming that he had been falsely imprisoned and requesting his immediate release.

The House of Lords ruled by a majority of 4-1 that his detention was lawful. Lord Atkin strongly disagreed with his fellow judges. Although this was at the height of the war and a time of great national peril, he was convinced that the detention of Liversidge without any reason being given was unlawful, and condemned it as an abuse of executive power. He also made this blistering attack on his fellow judges, which at the time caused great offence:

I view with apprehension the attitude of judges who... when faced with claims involving the liberty of the subject show themselves more executive minded than the executive... In this country, amid the clash of arms, the laws are not silent. They may be changed, but they speak the same language in war as in peace. It has always been one of the pillars of freedom, one of the principles of liberty for which on recent authority we are fighting, that the judges are no respecters of persons and stand between the subject and any attempted encroachment of his liberty by the executive, alert to see that any coercive action is justified in law. In this case I have listened to arguments which might have been addressed acceptably to the Court of King's Bench in the time of Charles I.

These words have rung down the years as a call to all judges to protect the rights of the individual against any abuse of power by the State. In more recent years the courts have developed a special procedure to enable individuals to challenge decisions by the executive. They can ask the courts to 'review' these decisions, and this procedure of judicial review is the special responsibility of the Administrative Court. More and more of these cases are being heard. They are not merely of interest and importance to the individuals concerned in them, but amount to a check on the power of the Executive, which should also be seen as a vital expression of our constitution in action.


Date: 2015-01-12; view: 1033


<== previous page | next page ==>
THE JUDICIARY | THE SOVEREIGN/MONARCH/CROWN
doclecture.net - lectures - 2014-2024 year. Copyright infringement or personal data (0.009 sec.)