Gadong Taohy


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.

Author: Kazikasa Kaziramar
Country: Senegal
Language: English (Spanish)
Genre: Travel
Published (Last): 28 July 2004
Pages: 275
PDF File Size: 20.32 Mb
ePub File Size: 5.30 Mb
ISBN: 888-1-47866-479-3
Downloads: 47347
Price: Free* [*Free Regsitration Required]
Uploader: Maukus

It is also old and familiar law that words which annderson one statute are given a particular meaning are not necessarily to b construed when they are found in another statute as having the same meaning. Halliday 2in which this House affirmed a decision of the Court of Appeal and of a Divisional Court of which I happened to be a member.

It will naturally be in the most dangerous cases, where detention is most essential to the public safety, that the information before the Secretary of State is most likely to be of a confidential character, precluding its disclosure.

But no one proposes either a substitution or an appeal.

Hakes 2especially by Lord Halsbury L. I venture to quote the words of the present Lord Chancellor in Barnard v. I note a further safeguard in the requirement that the Secretary of State must at least every month report to Parliament as to the action taken by him under the regulation including the number of persons detained under orders made thereunder and as to the number of cases, if any, in which he has declined to follow the advice of an advisory committee.

Halliday 1 and Eshugbayi Eleko v. Christopher, Nevis and Anguilla v. The validity of that detention has been raised in the action in which the appellant claims damages for false imprisonment, and consequential relief. Control of Building Operations. It is added that the present reg.

A constable would make no valid return by saying: The appellant brought an action for unlawful imprisonment against the first respondent who originally made.

The learned master, the judge in chambers Tucker J. I can imagine the counsel for the plaintiff insisting that the case should be fully tried, that he was entitled to cross-examine the Secretary on a matter personal to himself, that part evidence might be edited and selected, that the judge could not decide the case unless he had all the evidence, and that the defendant on whom the appellants allege rests the burden of justifying the detention must fail in his defence if he refuses to disclose material evidence, even piversidge the ground that livdrsidge disclose it is against the national interest.


The regulation concludes with the following provision: The form in which that abderson is brought before your Lordships for decision in the present case is somewhat unusual.

Before discussing which of these rival views ought to prevail. I am confirmed in the opinion that the matter is one for executive discretion by other provisions in the regulation, in particular, those relating to the advisory committee or committees which are to be appointed under para.

Liversidge v. Anderson

The Secretary of State may alone be in possession of the facts. The judge adds what is loversidge, that the court might no doubt be called on to decide questions of bona fides or mistaken identity, if they should ever arise. Or does it mean that he must have such cause of belief as he himself deems to be reasonable?

The powers cease with the emergency. This is not to say that the courts ought to adopt in wartime canons of construction different from those which they follow in peace time. Ex parte Lees 1the Home Secretary, when represented by the present Solicitor-General and the same junior counsel as in this case, frankly accepted the burden annderson proving reasonable cause. Garbutt 4 and Alman v. The court decided that it would ancerson on the appellant and dismissed the appeal solely upon that ground.

Yet liversigde court is to be constrained where detention is most justifiable to find the detention unjustified. He asked alternatively that the respondents should be ordered to give the following particulars of such para. Philby 6 ; and a more recent affirmation of the same principles in Wallace v.

Similarly the blackmailer is not the person to judge that he had reasonable cause for the demand: My Lords, the objection is answered by the very terms of the regulation itself. Lichfold 5 ; that the civilian defendant must make out a reasonable ground of suspicion and that a felony has actually been committed liverskdge Lord Tenterden C.


In the latter case it is for the Secretary of State alone to decide in the forum of his own conscience whether he has a reasonable cause of belief, and he cannot, if he has acted in good naderson, be called on to disclose to anyone the facts and circumstances which have induced his belief or to satisfy anyone but himself that these facts and circumstances constituted a reasonable cause of belief.

The answer to that liversidve is only to be found by scrutinizing the language of the enactment in the light of the circumstances and the general policy and object of the measure.

Liversage v Anderson [1942]

Note that the limitation as to reasonable cause in respect of premises is not imposed in the case of chattels. There are, of course, no three readings and no committee stage in either House. In these cases full legal evidence or proof is impossible, even if the Secretary does not claim that disclosure is against the public interest, a claim which must livedsidge be made in practically every case, and a claim liverxidge a judge necessarily has to admit.

But it seemed to be suggested in argument that, even if the power were conditional, yet it would be a good return by the Secretary of State to say that he had made the order in the terms of the regulation. The words, moreover, do not relate merely to powers of arrest. And when a lascivious youth under twenty-three years old is charged with having anferson knowledge of a girl under sixteen, it is not for him but for the jury to decide if he had reasonable grounds for his belief that she was not under sixteen: