A writ of habeas corpus might issue to Northern Rhodesia.
Such a writ of should only be issued where it can be regarded as ‘proper and efficient’ to do so. However, it remains ‘the most efficient protection yet developed for the liberty of the subject’. The reach of the writ depended not on formal notions of territorial sovereignty, but rather on the practical question of ‘the exact extent and nature of the jurisdiction or dominion exercised in fact by the Crown.’
Lord Parker said: ‘Reliance was further placed by the applicant on Barnardo v Ford and Rex v Secretary of State for Horne Affairs, Ex p O’Brien. Both those cases are authority for the proposition that the writ will issue not only to the actual gaoler but to a person who has power or control over the body. Further, in O’Brien’s case the writ was issued to the Secretary of State for Home Affairs, who had in fact handed the physical custody of the body over to the Government of the Irish Free State. It is clear, however, from the facts of that case, that the Secretary of State had not only been responsible for the original detention but that there were strong grounds for thinking that in handing over the body to the Government of the Irish Free State he had not lost all control over it. In those circumstances the court decided to issue the writ in order that the full facts could be investigated and argument heard on the return.
The position here is quite different. The restriction orders under which the applicant is detained were not made by the Secretary of State. His approval or consent was not required and there is no evidence that he took any part in the detention. No doubt the writ will issue not only to a person who has the actual custody but also to a person who has the constructive custody in the sense of having power and control over the body. Here, however, we can find no custody by the Secretary of State in any form.’ (obiter) said: ‘Finally, we should mention another point that was raised, namely, that even if the Secretary of State could be regarded as the custodian of the body the writ would not issue to a custodian in this country where the original and present detention was, as in the present case, in a foreign territory . .’
Judges:
Lord Evershed MR, Lord Parker
Citations:
[1960] 1 QB 241, [1959] 3 All ER 525
Citing:
Cited – Barnardo v Ford HL 1892
A boy who had been ‘found destitute and homeless’ by a ‘clergyman residing in Folkestone’ had been placed in an institution run by Dr Barnardo, who in turn said that he had handed over the boy to ‘an American gentleman’, who had taken him to Canada. . .
Cited – Secretary 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 . .
Cited by:
Cited – Secretary 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.
Litigation Practice
Updated: 18 May 2022; Ref: scu.470682