The Habeas Corpus Act 1679 is an Act of the Parliament of England (31 Cha. 2 c. 2) passed during the reign of King Charles II by what became known as the Habeas Corpus Parliament to define and strengthen the ancient prerogative writ of habeas corpus, a procedural device to force the courts to examine the lawfulness of a prisoner's detention in order to safeguard individual liberty and thus to prevent unlawful or arbitrary imprisonment.
Earlier and subsequent history
The Act is often wrongly described as the origin of the writ of habeas corpus. But the writ of habeas corpus had existed in various forms in England for at least five centuries before and is thought to have originated in the 12th Century Assize of Clarendon. It was guaranteed, but not created, by Magna Carta in 1215, whose article 39 reads: "No freeman shall be taken or imprisoned or disseised or exiled or in any way destroyed, nor will we go upon him nor will we send upon him except upon the lawful judgement of his peers or the law of the land." The Act of 1679 followed an earlier Habeas Corpus Act of 1640, which established that the command of the King or the Privy Council was no answer to a petition of habeas corpus. Further Habeas Corpus Acts were passed by the British Parliament in 1803, 1804, 1816 and 1862, but it is the Act of 1679 which is remembered as one of the most important statutes in English constitutional history. Though amended, it remains on the statute book to this day.
The Habeas Corpus Act 1862 (20 & 26 Vict. c.20) was an Act of the Parliament of the United Kingdom that limited the right of the English courts to issue writs of habeas corpus in British colonies or dominions. The act was passed in response to Ex Parte Anderson, a case in the Canadian courts in which the English Court of King's Bench attempted to issue a writ of habeas corpus and have Anderson appear before an English judge. While the court issued the writ, it felt that setting such a precedent would interfere with the "higher degree of Colonial independence". As a result the Act was passed, receiving the Royal Assent on 16 May 1862.
The statute consists of only two clauses:
s. 1 declares that no writ of habeas corpus can be issued by an English judge to any foreign nation or colony which forms part of the Queen's possessions (broadly speaking, the Commonwealth of Nations) if that nation has a court able to issue such a writ.
The Habeas Corpus Act 1816 (c.100 56 Geo 3) was an Act of the Parliament of the United Kingdom that modified the law on habeas corpus to remove the rule against "controverting the return" in non-criminal cases.
Historically, the rules around factual inquiries in decisions around petitions for habeas corpus had been based on the Opinion on the Writ of Habeas Corpus, a House of Lords disquisition by Wilmot CJ in 1758, which effectively nullified a bill for passage of An Act for giving a more speedy Remedy to the Subject upon the Writ of Habeas Corpus. This opinion made the argument that the writ only allowed the judge to ask for an explanation of why the prisoner was jailed (known as the 'return'), not to debate whether that explanation was justified or to examine the facts of it ('controvert' it) - that was for a jury to do.
There were several ways around this. One was "confessing and avoiding" - introducing and discussing facts which did not contradict the facts reported by the jailer, but simply invalidated them. A second method was "proceeding by rule and motion" - by making a ruling independent of the return, the judges (strictly speaking) did not argue with the return or contradict it, but the same outcome was reached as if they had. The law in this area caused some concern, because of feelings that it restricted the ability of the courts to deal with arguments over facts from the applicant for the writ. A bill was introduced in 1758 to resolve this, but rejected; a second bill was introduced in 1816 and passed, coming into law as the Habeas Corpus Act 1816. The Act explicitly allows judges to question and debate the facts laid out in a return, although it deliberately does not extend to criminal cases due to a fear that it could lead to a full trial being conducted just on the petition and return. It does, however, seemingly apply to cases where the petitioner or subject has been arrested for a criminal matter but not charged.
Um pingo de chuva estourou na pedra de gelo do meu whisky Eu lembrei de ti, que sempre quer botar Pingos de I em ipsilon. Ih, o que é que há? Parece até que eu sou um livro mal escrito E que você é uma caneta cor vermelha Rasurando o que não aceita nem consegue decifrar. Outras vezes voce tenta feito louca rasgar as minhas páginas Mal eu esqueço do que lembrei, você aparece: olá! Olá coisa nenhuma é o que me diz Roubando meu whisky pra falar Que eu te beijo como Judas beijou Cristo Pois levo um tempo a imaginar como seria Com que e quando eu trairia o que eu Jamais jurei te dar Põe na minha boca palavras que não são minhas Com voz trêmula e trágica E me ameaça quando diz: Eu vou embora Vá, você tem seu direito de ir e vir Mas eu tenho o meu de querer ficar Não precisa de um pedido de habeas corpus A porta está aberta E me ameaça quando diz: Eu vou embora Vá, você tem seu direito de ir e vir Mas eu tenho o meu de querer ficar Não precisa de um pedido de habeas corpus A porta está aberta Você tem seu direito de ir e vir Mas eu tenho o meu de querer ficar Não precisa de um pedido de habeas corpus A porta está aberta, tchau
Britain, Which Birthed AmericanIdeas About Liberty, Has Embraced Despotism ... For me, Britain was history incarnate ... The Habeas CorpusAct of 1679 would guarantee the right to trial and demand the state show cause for holding someone ... ********* ... •••• ... ....
... by the law of the land.” This clause has been celebrated as an early guarantee of trial by jury and of habeas corpus and inspired England’sPetition of Right (1628) and the Habeas CorpusAct (1679).
Many of the defects were remedied in England’s Habeas CorpusAct of 1679, which included a mandate stating that “any judge must issue the writ unless the prisoner is committed by lawful means” (A Concise History of the Common Law).
Wahpeton Daily News
14 Jun 2023
Wahpeton Daily News
14 Jun 2023