Act of Parliament | |
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 | |
Amended by | |
Repealed by | Justices of the Peace Act 1968 |
Status: Repealed | |
Text of statute as originally enacted |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.
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The words of commencement were repealed by section 1 of, and Schedule 1 to, the Statute Law Revision Act 1948.
The whole Act, so far as not otherwise repealed, was repealed in England by section 8(2) of, and Part I of Schedule 5 to, the Justices of the Peace Act 1968.
In the preamble, the words from "and by another Statute made in the six and thirtieth" to "inrolled in Latine" were repealed by section 1 of, and Schedule 1 to, the Statute Law Revision Act 1948.
This section, from "be it" to "enacted" was repealed in England by section 1 of, and Part I of the Schedule to, the Statute Law Revision Act 1888.
This section, from "be it" to "enacted" was repealed in England by section 1 of, and Part I of the Schedule to, the Statute Law Revision Act 1888.
"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.
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.
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.
Habeas corpus is an equitable remedy by which a report can be made to a court alleging the unlawful detention or imprisonment of an individual, and requesting that the court order the individual's custodian to bring the prisoner to court, to determine whether their detention is lawful.
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.
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.
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.
The Act of Uniformity 1551, sometimes referred to as the Act of Uniformity 1552, or the Uniformity Act 1551 was an Act of the Parliament of England.
The Act of Uniformity 1548, the Act of Uniformity 1549, the Uniformity Act 1548, or the Act of Equality was an act of the Parliament of England, passed on 21 January 1549.
The Privilege of Parliament Act 1512 or the Parliamentary Privilege Act 1512, commonly known as Strode's Act, is an Act of the Parliament of England. It enacted parliamentary privilege in law, prohibiting any suit or prosecution from being brought or punishment being imposed against any MP or peer for speaking on any matter in parliament.
The Habeas Corpus Act 1862 is 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 royal assent on 16 May 1862.
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.
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.
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.
The Criminal Law Act 1826 is an act of the Parliament of the United Kingdom that consolidated a large number of acts relating to criminal procedure.
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.
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 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.
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.
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.
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).
The Summary Jurisdiction Act 1884, also known as the Summary Jurisdiction (Repeal) Act 1884, was an act of the Parliament of the United Kingdom that clarified the Summary Jurisdiction Acts as amended by the Summary Jurisdiction Act 1879 and repealed for England and Wales statutes from 1691 to 1882.
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).