Darnell's Case

Last updated

The Five Knights' case (1627) 3 How St Tr 1 (also Darnel's or Darnell's case) (K.B. 1627), is an English habeas corpus case of major significance in the history of English and later United Kingdom constitutional law.

Contents

The case was brought in 1627 by five knights who were being held in detention by King Charles I. Charles had imposed forced loans, and when the knights argued that such loans were illegal and refused to pay, they were imprisoned without trial. The prisoners sought habeas corpus and an order from a common law court that the king should specify what law they were alleged to have broken. The king refused, simply stating that they were being held per special mandatum domino regis (by special command of the lord the king). The court declined to release the prisoners, holding that under the common law the king was not required to be more specific.

Parliament rapidly passed legislation to overturn the result, in the Petition of Right 1628, marking the first of a series of legislative changes and court cases that ultimately led to the modern constitutional understanding of habeas corpus as a protected guarantee of fundamental liberty, in the Habeas Corpus Act 1679.

Background

In 1626, Charles I had recalled Parliament to approve taxes for the Anglo-Spanish War (1625–1630). While supportive of the conflict, Parliament first demanded an investigation into the conduct of the army commander, the Duke of Buckingham, notorious for inefficiency and extravagance. Charles refused to allow this and instead adopted a policy of "forced loans"; those who refused to pay would be imprisoned without trial, and if they continued to resist, sent before the Privy Council. [1]

Sir Randolph Crewe, the Chief Justice of the King's Bench, who was dismissed by Charles I for refusing to declare the "forced loans" legal Randolph Crewe by Peter Lely.jpg
Sir Randolph Crewe, the Chief Justice of the King's Bench, who was dismissed by Charles I for refusing to declare the "forced loans" legal

The Chief Justice Sir Randolph Crewe ruled this policy was illegal and the judiciary complied only after he was dismissed. [2] There were over 76 men who refused to pay the tax as they claimed that it was unauthorized by Parliament. [3] Among them were Sir Thomas Darnell, Sir John Corbet, Sir Walter Erle, Sir John Heveningham and Sir Edmund Hampden, who submitted a joint petition for habeas corpus . Approved on 3 November 1627, the court ordered the five be brought before them in order to clarify what law they had broken; it became known as Darnell's Case, although Darnell himself withdrew. [4]

Judgment

The case was heard by Sir Nicholas Hyde, the new Lord Chief Justice, with the prosecution led by Attorney General Sir Robert Heath. The problem before the court was the defendants had been arrested but the warrants did not specify why; this was unsurprising, since Coke had previously ruled the loans themselves were illegal.

Heath claimed the Royal Prerogative allowed the king to take whatever action he considered necessary "in time of crisis" and thus he had no need to justify the detentions. For the defence, John Selden, a distinguished legal scholar, argued that "by the constant and settled laws of this kingdom, without which we have nothing, no man can be justly imprisoned ...[even by the king]... without a cause of the commitment expressed in the return", and that to hold otherwise would be to treat the free man as having no greater legal status than the villein. [5]

Although the judges were unable to determine what law had been broken, they upheld the right of the king to detain per special mandatum domino regis (by special command of the lord the king) and denied bail on the basis that, as there were no charges, "the [prisoners] could not be freed, as the offence was probably too dangerous for public discussion". [6]

Significance

Although the judges had refused to release the prisoners, Charles decided not to pursue charges; since his opponents included the previous Chief Justice, and other senior legal officers, the ruling meant the loans would almost certainly be deemed illegal. [7] Selden claimed afterwards there was an effort made by Charles and Robert Heath to tamper with the rulings of the case, pointing to the fact that both Heath and Hyde were subsequently knighted. While historians have generally agreed with Selden's assertions, Mark Kishlansky has disputed them. [8]

Charles's need for income, with so many openly refusing to pay, forced him to recall Parliament in 1628. [9] The controversy surrounding the case resulted in a majority of the newly-elected MPs being opposed to the king, [9] and parliament rapidly approved the Petition of Right 1628 which reversed the effect of the decision by preventing the power of arbitrary committal by the king. The Habeas Corpus Act 1640 restored the right to petition the courts for release against the wishes of the king and his Council, but it was not completely effective [10] and the practice of executive detention without specific cause continued, notably with Lilburne's Case in 1653. The modern constitutional understanding of habeas corpus as a protected guarantee of fundamental liberty was eventually accomplished by the reforms of the Habeas Corpus Act of 1679. [10]

Related Research Articles

Habeas corpus is a recourse in law by which a report can be made to a court in the events of unlawful detention or imprisonment, requesting that the court order the person's custodian to bring the prisoner to court, to determine whether their detention is lawful.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Matthew Hale (jurist)</span> English jurist and scholar (1609–1676)

Sir Matthew Hale was an influential English barrister, judge and jurist most noted for his treatise Historia Placitorum Coronæ, or The History of the Pleas of the Crown.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Edward Coke</span> English lawyer and judge (1552–1634)

Sir Edward Coke was an English barrister, judge, and politician. He is often considered the greatest jurist of the Elizabethan and Jacobean eras.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Petition of Right</span> 1628 English constitutional document

The Petition of Right, passed on 7 June 1628, is an English constitutional document setting out specific individual protections against the state, reportedly of equal value to Magna Carta and the Bill of Rights 1689. It was part of a wider conflict between Parliament and the Stuart monarchy that led to the 1639 to 1653 Wars of the Three Kingdoms, ultimately resolved in the 1688–89 Glorious Revolution.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Habeas Corpus Act 1679</span> United Kingdom law

The Habeas Corpus Act 1679 is an Act of Parliament in England during the reign of King Charles II. It was passed by what became known as the Habeas Corpus Parliament to define and strengthen the ancient prerogative writ of habeas corpus, which required a court to examine the lawfulness of a prisoner's detention and thus prevent unlawful or arbitrary imprisonment.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Nicholas Hyde</span>

Sir Nicholas Hyde was Lord Chief Justice of England.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Robert Heath</span> English judge and politician

Sir Robert Heath was an English judge and politician who sat in the House of Commons from 1621 to 1625.

<i>Bushels Case</i> 1670 English legal case

Bushel’s Case (1670) 124 E.R. 1006, also spelled Bushell's Case, is a famous English decision on the role of juries. It established beyond question the independence of the jury. It also confirmed that the Court of Common Pleas could issue a writ of habeas corpus in ordinary criminal cases.

In United States law, habeas corpus is a recourse challenging the reasons or conditions of a person's confinement under color of law. A petition for habeas corpus is filed with a court that has jurisdiction over the custodian, and if granted, a writ is issued directing the custodian to bring the confined person before the court for examination into those reasons or conditions. The Suspension Clause of the United States Constitution specifically included the English common law procedure in Article One, Section 9, clause 2, which demands that "The privilege of the writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in cases of rebellion or invasion the public safety may require it."

In United States law, habeas corpus is a recourse challenging the reasons or conditions of a person's detention under color of law. The Guantanamo Bay detention camp is a United States military prison located within Guantanamo Bay Naval Base. A persistent standard of indefinite detention without trial and incidents of torture led the operations of the Guantanamo Bay detention camp to be challenged internationally as an affront to international human rights, and challenged domestically as a violation of the Due Process Clause of the Fifth and Fourteenth amendments of the United States Constitution, including the right of petition for habeas corpus. On 19 February 2002, Guantanamo detainees petitioned in federal court for a writ of habeas corpus to review the legality of their detention.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Roger Maynwaring</span> Archbishop of Canterbury

Roger Maynwaring, variously spelt Mainwaring or Manwaring, was a bishop in the Church of England, censured by Parliament in 1628 for sermons seen as undermining the law and constitution.

Sir Thomas Darnell, 1st Baronet was an English landowner, at the centre of a celebrated state legal case in the reign of Charles I of England, often known as the 'Five Knights' Case' but to the lawyers of the period Darnell's Case.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">William Coryton</span> English politician (1580–1651)

William Coryton (1580–1651) of West Newton Ferrers, St Mellion, Cornwall, was a Cornish gentleman who served as MP for Cornwall in 1624, 1626 and 1628, for Liskeard in 1625, for Grampound in 1640 and for Launceston 1640–41. He was expelled from Parliament for falsifying returns.

Benjamin Valentine, was an English politician and Member of Parliament.

The Habeas Corpus Act of 1867 is an act of Congress that significantly expanded the jurisdiction of federal courts to issue writs of habeas corpus. Passed February 5, 1867, the Act amended the Judiciary Act of 1789 to grant the courts the power to issue writs of habeas corpus "in all cases where any person may be restrained of their liberty in violation of the constitution, or any treaty or law of the United States." Prior to the Act's passage, prisoners in the custody of one of the states who wished to challenge the legality of their detention could petition for a writ of habeas corpus only in state courts; the federal court system was barred from issuing writs of habeas corpus in their cases. The Act also permitted the court "to go beyond the return" and question the truth of the jailer's stated justification for detaining the petitioning prisoner, whereas prior to the Act courts were technically bound to accept the jailer's word that the prisoner was actually being held for the reason stated. The Act largely restored habeas corpus following its 1863 suspension by Congress, ensuring that anyone arrested after its passage could challenge their detention in the federal courts, but denied habeas relief to anyone who was already in military custody for any military offense or for having aided the Confederacy.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">John Eliot (statesman)</span> English statesman (1592–1632)

Sir John Eliot was an English statesman who was serially imprisoned in the Tower of London, where he eventually died, by King Charles I for advocating the rights and privileges of Parliament.

Sir Henry Calthorpe (1586–1637), was an English lawyer who acted as solicitor-general to Queen Henrietta Maria, and also as the defence barrister in two high-profile cases: the Darnell's Case and the Valentine case. He was Recorder of London in 1635–36, attorney of court of wards in 1636, and was knighted the same year.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">3rd Parliament of Charles I</span>

The 3rd Parliament of King Charles I was summoned by King Charles I of England on 31 January 1628 and first assembled on 17 March 1628. The elected Speaker of the House of Commons was Sir John Finch, the Member of Parliament for Canterbury.

Stone v. Powell, 428 U.S. 465 (1976), was decision of the Supreme Court of the United States that limited which claims of Fourth Amendment violations could be made by state prisoners in habeas corpus petitions in federal courts. Specifically, a claim that the exclusionary rule had been broken would be barred if state courts had already given it a full and fair hearing. The decision combined two cases that were argued before the Supreme Court on the same day with similar issues, one filed by Lloyd Powell and the other, titled Wolff v. Rice, filed by David Rice.

Sir Edmund Hampden was an English landowner, at the centre of a celebrated state legal case in the reign of Charles I of England, known as the Five Knights' Case or Darnell's Case.

References

  1. ↑ Cust 1985, pp. 209–211.
  2. ↑ Hostettler 1997, p. 125.
  3. ↑ Bucholz, Robert; Key, Newton (2020). Early Modern England 1485-1714 A Narrative History (3rd ed.). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons Ltd. p. 241.
  4. ↑ Guy 1982, pp. 291–292.
  5. ↑ Gardiner 1906, p. 59.
  6. ↑ Hostettler 1997, p. 126.
  7. ↑ Guy 1982, p. 293.
  8. ↑ Kishlansky 1999, pp. 53–83.
  9. 1 2 Hostettler 1997, p. 127.
  10. 1 2 Farbey, Judith (2011). The Law of Habeas Corpus. Oxford University Press.

Sources

This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.