Regina v Secretary of State for Home Affairs, Ex parte O’Brien: CA 1923

Mr O’Brien had been arrested in London under regulation 14B of the Restoration of Order in Ireland Regulations 1920 and deported to Ireland there to be interned until further order. A writ of habeas corpus was sought as against the governor of Mountjoy prison.
Held: The court accepted the affidavit evidence of the Home Secretary to the effect that Mr O’Brien was under the control of the governor that the governor was an official of the Irish Free State and not subject to the orders or directions of the Home Secretary or the British government. However, the writ of habeas corpus should issue. This was because the arrangements which existed between the Irish Free State and the United Kingdom provided grounds for believing that the Home Secretary could obtain the return of Mr O’Brien.
A statement had been made in the House of Commons on 19 March 1923 that the Irish Free State had given the British government a number of undertakings, one of which was to the effect that if it was decided that any person should not have been deported he would be released. There was therefore a reasonable prospect that the Home Secretary could exert sufficient control over the custody of Mr O’Brien to justify the issue of the writ.
Scrutton LJ said that if the court is satisfied that the body whose production is asked is not in the custody, power or control of the person to whom it is sought to address the writ, a writ of habeas corpus is not the proper remedy.

Judges:

Bankes, Scrutton, Atkin LJJ

Citations:

[1923] 2 KB 361

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Appeal fromSecretary of State for Home Affairs v O’Brien HL 1923
The Crown has no right of appeal against the grant of a discharge of a prisoner on a writ of habeas corpus.
The Home Secrtary appealed against the issue of a writ of habeas corpus against him in respect of a prisoner held in Mountjoy prison in . .
CitedSecretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs v Rahmatullah SC 31-Oct-2012
The claimant complained that the UK Armed forces had taken part in his unlawful rendition from Iraq by the US government. He had been detaiined in Iraq and transferred to US Forces. The government became aware that he was to be removed to . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

International, Litigation Practice

Updated: 11 May 2022; Ref: scu.470684