Habeas Corpus Act 1640

Last updated

Habeas Corpus Act 1640 [1]
Act of Parliament
Coat of Arms of England (1603-1649).svg
Long title An Act for the Regulating the Privie Councell and for taking away the Court commonly called the Star Chamber. [2]
Citation 16 Cha. 1. c. 10
Dates
Royal assent 5 July 1641
Other legislation
Repealed by Statute Law Revision Act 1863
Status: Repealed
Text of statute as originally enacted

The Habeas Corpus Act 1640 (16 Cha. 1. c. 10) was an Act of the Parliament of England.

Contents

The Act was passed by the Long Parliament shortly after the impeachment and execution of Thomas Wentworth, 1st Earl of Strafford in 1641 and before the English Civil War. It abolished the Star Chamber. [3] It also declared that anyone imprisoned by order of the king, privy council, or any councillor could apply for a writ of habeas corpus, required that all returns to the writ "certify the true cause" of imprisonment, [4] and clarified that the Court of Common Pleas also had jurisdiction to issue the writ in such cases (prior to which it was argued that only the King's Bench could issue the writ). [5]

The writ was amended by the Habeas Corpus Act 1679.

The words of commencement were repealed by section 1 of, and Schedule 1 to, the Statute Law Revision Act 1948.

The whole Act, so far as not otherwise repealed, was repealed in England by section 8(2) of, and Part I of Schedule 5 to, the Justices of the Peace Act 1968.

Preamble

In the preamble, the words from "and by another Statute made in the six and thirtieth" to "inrolled in Latine" were repealed by section 1 of, and Schedule 1 to, the Statute Law Revision Act 1948.

Section 2

This section, from "be it" to "enacted" was repealed in England by section 1 of, and Part I of the Schedule to, the Statute Law Revision Act 1888.

Section 4

This section, from "be it" to "enacted" was repealed in England by section 1 of, and Part I of the Schedule to, the Statute Law Revision Act 1888.

Section 6

"Every person committed contrary to this Act shall have an habeas corpus for the ordinary fees.-And ... if any person shall hereafter be committed restrained of his libertie or suffer imprisonment [by the order or decree of any such Court of Star Chamber or other court aforesaid now or at any time hereafter having or pretending to have the same or like jurisdiction power or authoritie to commit or imprison as aforesaid or by the command or warrant of the Kings Majestie his heires or successors jn theire owne person or by the command or warrant of the councell board or of any of the lords or others of his Majesties privy councelll] that in every such case every person so committed restrained of his libertie or suffering imprisonment upon demand or motion made by his councell or other imployed by him for that purpose unto the judges of the Court of Kings Bench or Common Pleas in open court shall without delay upon any pretence whatsoever for the ordinary fees usually paid for the same have forthwith granted unto him a writ of habeas corpus to be directed generally unto all and every sheriffs gaoler minister officer or other person in whose custody the party committed or restrained shall be [and the sheriffs gaoler minister officer or other pson in whose custody the pty so committed or restrained shall be 2] shall at the return of the said writ & according to the command thereof upon due and convenient notice thereof given unto him [at the charge of the party who requireth or procureth such writ and upon securitie by his owne bond given to pay the charge of carrying back the prisoner if he shall be remanded by the court to which he shall be brought as in like cases bath beene used such charges of bringing up and carrying backe the prisoner to be alwaies ordered by the court if any difference shall arise thereabout 1] bring or cause to be brought the body of the said party so committed or restrained unto and before the judges or justices of the said court from whence the same writ shall issue in open court and shall then likewise certifie the true cause of such his detainor or imprisonment and thereupon the court within three court dayes after such return made and delivered in open court shall proceed to examine and determine whether the cause of such commitment appearing upon the said return be just and legall or not and shall thereupon do what to justice shall appertainc either by delivering bailing or remanding the prisoner and if any thing shall be otherwise wilfully done or omitted to be done by any judge justice oflicer or other person aforementioned contrary to the direction and true meaning hel'cof that then such person so offending shall forfeit to the party grieved his trebble damages to be recovered by such meancs and in such manner as is formerly in this Act limited and appointed for the like penaltie to be sued for and recovered."

This section, from "be it" to "enacted that" was repealed in England by section 1 of, and Part I of the Schedule to, the Statute Law Revision Act 1888.

This section was repealed in England by section 8(2) of, and Part II of Schedule 5 to, the Justices of the Peace Act 1968. Section 6 remains good law in South Australia, Queensland, [6] New South Wales and Victoria.

Section 7

In this section, the words "and be it enacted" were repealed in England by section 1 of, and Part I of the Schedule to, the Statute Law Revision Act 1888.

Section 8

This section, from "lastly" to "enacted that" was repealed in England by section 1 of, and Part I of the Schedule to, the Statute Law Revision Act 1888.

Related Research Articles

Habeas corpus is a recourse in law through which a person can report an unlawful detention or imprisonment to a court and request that the court order the custodian of the person, usually a prison official, to bring the prisoner to court, to determine whether the detention is lawful.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Statute of Frauds</span> United Kingdom legislation

The Statute of Frauds (1677) was an act of the Parliament of England. It required that certain types of contracts, wills, and grants, and assignment or surrender of leases or interest in real property must be in writing and signed to avoid fraud on the court by perjury and subornation of perjury. It also required that documents of the courts be signed and dated.

<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">Offences Against the Person Act 1861</span> UK criminal statute

The Offences against the Person Act 1861 is an Act of the Parliament of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland. It consolidated provisions related to offences against the person from a number of earlier statutes into a single Act. For the most part these provisions were, according to the draftsman of the Act, incorporated with little or no variation in their phraseology. It is one of a group of Acts sometimes referred to as the Criminal Law Consolidation Acts 1861. It was passed with the object of simplifying the law. It is essentially a revised version of an earlier Consolidation Act, the Offences Against the Person Act 1828, incorporating subsequent statutes.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Act of Uniformity 1552</span> United Kingdom law of religion and the Church of England

The Act of Uniformity 1551, sometimes referred to as the Act of Uniformity 1552, was an Act of the Parliament of England.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Act of Uniformity 1548</span> United Kingdom law of religion

The Act of Uniformity 1548 or the Act of Uniformity 1549 was an Act of the Parliament of England, passed on 21 January 1549.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Malicious Damage Act 1861</span> United Kingdom legislation

The Malicious Damage Act 1861 is an Act of the Parliament of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland. It consolidated provisions related to malicious damage from a number of earlier statutes into a single Act. For the most part these provisions were, according to the draftsman of the Act, incorporated with little or no variation in their phraseology. It is one of a group of Acts sometimes referred to as the Criminal Law Consolidation Acts 1861. It was passed with the object of simplifying the law. It is essentially a revised version of an earlier consolidation Act, the Malicious Injuries to Property Act 1827, incorporating subsequent statutes.

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."

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Libel Act 1843</span> United Kingdom legislation

The Libel Act 1843, commonly known as Lord Campbell's Libel Act, was an Act of the Parliament of the United Kingdom. It enacted several important codifications of and modifications to the common law tort of libel.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Punishment of Offences Act 1837</span> United Kingdom legislation

The Punishment of Offences Act 1837 was an Act of the Parliament of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland. It abolished the death penalty for a number of statutory offences and replaced it with transportation for life.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Unlawful Drilling Act 1819</span> United Kingdom legislation

The Unlawful Drilling Act 1819, also known as the Training Prevention Act is an Act of the Parliament of the United Kingdom. It was one of the Six Acts passed after the Peterloo massacre.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Criminal Law Act 1826</span> United Kingdom legislation

The Criminal Law Act 1826 is an Act of the Parliament of the United Kingdom. It was a consolidation Act. It consolidated a large number of Acts relating to criminal procedure. It was due to Sir Robert Peel.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Piracy Act 1850</span> United Kingdom legislation

The Piracy Act 1850, sometimes called the Pirates Repeal Act 1850, is an Act of the Parliament of the United Kingdom. It relates to proceedings for the condemnation of ships and other things taken from pirates and creates an offence of perjury in such proceedings.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Criminal Procedure Act 1853</span> United Kingdom legislation

The Criminal Procedure Act 1853 is an Act of the Parliament of the United Kingdom. It makes provision for the giving of evidence by prisoners otherwise than at their own trial.

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 his or her 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">Remedies in Singapore constitutional law</span>

The remedies available in a Singapore constitutional claim are the prerogative orders – quashing, prohibiting and mandatory orders, and the order for review of detention – and the declaration. As the Constitution of the Republic of Singapore is the supreme law of Singapore, the High Court can hold any law enacted by Parliament, subsidiary legislation issued by a minister, or rules derived from the common law, as well as acts and decisions of public authorities, that are inconsistent with the Constitution to be void. Mandatory orders have the effect of directing authorities to take certain actions, prohibiting orders forbid them from acting, and quashing orders invalidate their acts or decisions. An order for review of detention is sought to direct a party responsible for detaining a person to produce the detainee before the High Court so that the legality of the detention can be established.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Perjury Act 1911</span> United Kingdom legislation

The Perjury Act 1911 is an Act of the Parliament of the United Kingdom. It creates the offence of perjury and a number of similar offences.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Criminal law in the Marshall Court</span>

The Marshall Court (1801–1835) heard forty-one criminal law cases, slightly more than one per year. Among such cases are United States v. Simms (1803), United States v. More (1805), Ex parte Bollman (1807), United States v. Hudson (1812), Cohens v. Virginia (1821), United States v. Perez (1824), Worcester v. Georgia (1832), and United States v. Wilson (1833).

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Criminal law in the Taney Court</span> Aspect of U.S. judicial history (1836–1864)

The Taney Court heard thirty criminal law cases, approximately one per year. Notable cases include Prigg v. Pennsylvania (1842), United States v. Rogers (1846), Ableman v. Booth (1858), Ex parte Vallandigham (1861), and United States v. Jackalow (1862).

References

  1. The citation of this Act by this short title was authorised by section 5 of, and Schedule 2 to, the Statute Law Revision Act 1948. Due to the repeal of those provisions, it is now authorised by section 19(2) of the Interpretation Act 1978.
  2. These words are printed against this Act in the second column of Schedule 2 to the Statute Law Revision Act 1948, which is headed "Title".
  3. 'Book 1, Ch. 11: Charles I', A New History of London: Including Westminster and Southwark (1773) pp. 154-74. Retrieved 6 March 2007.
  4. Paul Halliday, Habeas Corpus: From England to Empire (Cambridge: Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, 2010), 224–26.
  5. R. J. Sharpe, The Law of Habeas Corpus (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1989), 18.
  6. "IMPERIAL ACTS APPLICATION ACT 1984 - As at 15 May 2014 - Act 70 of 1984". Austlii.edu.au. 15 May 2014. Retrieved 22 December 2022.