(Trinidad and Tobago) There had been an insurrection, and many people were taken prisoner by the insurrectionists. To secure their release, the President issued an amnesty to all the insurgents, including the applicant. After surrendering, the applicant was kept in custody, and now sought his own release. Writs of habeas corpus were refused.
Held: The prisoners who had been pardoned before their trial, but had remained in custody because there were doubts about the constitutional propriety of their pardons, had an arguable case for habeas corpus application. They had established prima facie the validity of the pardons, and their continued detention without return to court to argue the habeas corpus application was unlawful. At the hearing of the habeas corpus application, the court would be able to determine the validity of the pardons.
Gazette 19-Feb-1992,  1 AC 545,  2 WLR 211
Cited – Rex v Rudd 1775
Mrs Rudd applied for a writ of habeas corpus, having already given evidence as an accomplice and being ready to give further evidence to assist in convicting her partners in crime.
Held: Where a co-accused gave evidence for the crown and . .
Cited – Regina v Uxbridge Magistrates and Another ex parte Adimi; R v CPS ex parte Sorani; R v SSHD and Another ex parte Kaziu Admn 29-Jul-1999
The three asylum seeker appellants arrived in the United Kingdom at different times in possession of false passports. They were prosecuted for possession or use of false documents contrary to section 5, and for obtaining air services by deception . .
See Also – Attorney General of Trinidad and Tobago v Phillip PC 9-Nov-1994
A pardon which had been give to insurrectionists was invalid, since it purported to excuse future conduct also, but there had been no duress shown. There is no general power to excuse a crime before it is committed. Lord Woolf: ‘A pardon must in the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Torts – Other, Commonwealth, Constitutional, Human Rights
Updated: 11 May 2022; Ref: scu.84711