An Applicant is entitled to seek habeas corpus on more than one occasion, but he is not permitted to rely upon the same grounds unless he can rely upon fresh evidence. That evidence must not just be additional evidence obtained after the previous hearing, but evidence which could not reasonably have been adduced at that earlier hearing. ‘First, it is clear to the Court that an applicant for Habeas Corpus is required to put forward on his initial application the whole of the case which is then fairly available to him. He is not free to advance an application on one ground, and to keep back a separate ground of application as a basis for a second and renewed application to the Court. The true doctrine of estoppel known as res judicata does not apply to the decision of this Court on an application for Habeas Corpus . . there is, however, a wider sense in which the doctrine of res judicata maybe applicable, whereby it becomes an abuse of process to raise in subsequent proceedings matters which could, and therefore should, have been litigated in earlier proceedings . . that principle is applicable to proceedings for Habeas Corpus… although no doubt, the stringency of the application of the principle maybe different in cases concerning the liberty of the subject from that in cases concerning such matters as disputes upon property.’
Judges:
Lord Widgery CJ, Griffiths and Gibson JJ
Citations:
[1979] 1 WLR 1417
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Citing:
Appealed to – Regina v Governor of Pentonville Prison, Ex parte Tarling HL 1978
The Government of Singapore sought Mr Tarling’s extradition inter alia on two charges of conspiring in Hong Kong to steal shares in a Hong Kong company, the property of a Singapore Company.
Held: a conspiracy in Hong Kong to steal shares in a . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Extradition
Updated: 13 May 2022; Ref: scu.220730
