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):||11 July 2014|
|PDF File Size:||20.24 Mb|
|ePub File Size:||10.40 Mb|
|Price:||Free* [*Free Regsitration Required]|
In A-G of St. This was not a view favoured by the Attorney-General in the present case, for it weakens his case as to public mischief.
Nor was there any ground that I can see for striking it out. Doncaster 1and the cases cited earlier in this judgment. On that ground he was of opinion that it was outside the delegated legislative power conferred by the Act because there were no express words in the Act providing for imprisonment without trial.
He does not, however, state in what respect the document is invalid and on that pleading it would have been open to him to attack it upon several grounds, as, for example, that the regulation was ultra vires, or that Sir John did not honestly believe that the appellant was of hostile associations and that by reason thereof it was necessary to exercise control over him, or that, if Sir John did so believe, there did not exist in fact any reasonable grounds for such belief.
Slade for the appellant. 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 liversidte, if livrrsidge has acted in liveraidge faith, 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.
That is the business of Parliament. The reasonable cause can only be material in so far as it is an element present to his mind which determines his own belief. Lees was a member of such an organization stating the effect of the affidavit shortly as is defined in reg. The appellant claims that he is entitled to explore the mind of the Secretary of State in order to find out what was the state of his information, in the hope that when this is revealed it may prove to be such that the court will hold it not to afford a reasonable cause for the belief which the Secretary of State professed to entertain, when judged by the standard of the ordinary reasonable man.
The real object of the application is to raise at this early stage the vital question as to what onus, if any, lies on the respondents as defendants in the action in the circumstances of the case. I refer to the constitution of advisory committees to which any person aggrieved by a detention order ligersidge make representations.
So they can, but I am not at all impressed by this argument. Lord Atkin’s view was that the phrase “reasonable cause” in the statute at hand indicated that the actions of the Secretary of State were meant to be evaluated by an objective standard. The respondent traverses the wrongful imprisonment and contents himself with the admission that he ordered the appellant to livesridge detained under the regulation.
Anderson and Morrison 1Tucker J. I omit for the moment reg. I will assume that this is so, but the context and circumstances in which they are used may force one to the conclusion that even the most familiar words and expressions are used in other than their ordinary meaning, and this liversiddge the case here.
The appellant was andersoj by an order which is regular in point of form. But how unconvincing this appears. The present form of reg. It is the duty of the Secretary to check these underground and insidious activities of the enemy and their consequences, whether they result in sabotage or in anti-British propaganda or in weakening the national effort and endurance.
Taking the first paragraph, he must, in the first place, believe the person a to be of hostile origin or associations, or b to have been recently concerned in acts prejudicial to the public safety or the defence of the realm, or c in the preparation or instigation of such acts, or d to have been or to be a member of, or e to be active in the furtherance of the objects of organizations which are carefully defined by reference to the personal decision of the Home Secretary.
Livdrsidge regulation concludes with the following provision: In such a case this House would not, generally speaking, entertain an appeal, but the circumstances are exceptional.
Now, therefore, I, in pursuance of the power conferred on me by reg.
The contrast is all the more marked when the words of 18B 1. The material words of the regulation are as follows: Leman Street Police Station Inspector 1 it was held that art. No reasons were given by the master or Tucker J. On the contrary, there are to be found in the language both of the statute and the regulation indications that the final determination of all such matters was to lie with the Secretary of State alone.
The private individual has power on two conditions: Having regard to the great importance of the questions arising out of orders for detention under reg.
Liversage v Anderson 
Views Read Edit View history. If an officer of police of a rank not lower than that of superintendent. Whereas I have reasonable cause to believe Jack Perlzweig alias Robert Liversidge to be a person of hostile associations and that by reason thereof it is necessary to exercise control over him: A very little consideration will show that the power of the court under s. The question is whether the Secretary of State has power under reg.
Liversidge v Anderson by Ellie Wonnacott on Prezi
The order under Defence Regulation 18 B was made against you for the following reasons. The judge adds what is obvious, that the court might no doubt be vv on to decide questions of bona fides or mistaken identity, if they should ever arise.
In the Liversidge case the only question raised is in an liversideg for false imprisonment brought by the appellant. That was not done. Liversidge v Anderson  UKHL 1 is a landmark United Kingdom administrative law case which concerned the relationship between the courts and the state, and in particular the assistance that the judiciary should give to the executive in times of national emergency. Where the information in the possession of the Secretary of State is of such a nature that this country might be seriously prejudiced if it came to the ears of the enemy, the serious risk of leakage would inevitably deter him from disclosing it.