Habeas Corpus Act 1679

Last updated

Habeas Corpus Act 1679 [1]
Act of Parliament
Coat of Arms of England (1660-1689).svg
Long title An Act for the better securing the Liberty of the Subject, and for Prevention of Imprisonment beyond the Seas.
Citation 31 Cha. 2. c. 2
Dates
Royal assent 27 May 1679
Other legislation
Amended by
Text of statute as originally enacted
Text of the Habeas Corpus Act 1679 as in force today (including any amendments) within the United Kingdom, from legislation.gov.uk.

The Habeas Corpus Act 1679 is an Act of Parliament in England (31 Cha. 2. c. 2) during the reign of King Charles II. [2] 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. [3]

Contents

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 Assize of Clarendon of 1166. [4] It was guaranteed, but not created, by Magna Carta in 1215, whose article 39 reads (translated from Latin): "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." [3] The Act of 1679 followed an earlier Habeas Corpus Act 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. [5]

Content

In criminal matters other than treason and felonies (a distinction which no longer exists), the act gave prisoners or third parties acting on their behalf the right to challenge their detention by demanding from the Lord Chancellor, Justices of the King's Bench, and the Barons of the Exchequer of the jurisdiction a judicial review of their imprisonment. The act laid out certain temporal and geographical conditions under which prisoners had to be brought before the courts. Jailors were forbidden to move prisoners from one prison to another or out of the country to evade the writ. In case of disobedience jailers would be punished with severe fines which had to be paid to the prisoner. [6] [7]

Parliamentary history

The Act came about because the Earl of Shaftesbury encouraged his friends in the Commons to introduce the Bill where it passed and was then sent up to the House of Lords. Shaftesbury was the leading Exclusionist—those who wanted to exclude Charles II's brother James, Duke of York from the succession—and the Bill was a part of that struggle as they believed James would rule arbitrarily. The Lords decided to add many wrecking amendments to the Bill in an attempt to kill it; the Commons had no choice but to pass the Bill with the Lords' amendments because they learned that the King would soon end the current parliamentary session.[ citation needed ]

A popular but likely untrue anecdote holds claims that the Act only passed because the votes in favour were miscounted as a joke. [8] [9] When a parliamentary house votes on legislation, each side—those voting for and against—appoints a teller who stands on each side of a door through which those Lords who vote "aye" re-enter the House (the "nays" remain seated). One teller counts aloud whilst the other teller listens and keeps watch to verify the count. [10] Of the Habeas Corpus Act count, Gilbert Burnet wrote,

Lord Grey and Lord Norris were named to be the tellers: Lord Norris, being a man subject to vapours, was not at all times attentive to what he was doing: so, a very fat lord coming in, Lord Grey counted him as ten, as a jest at first: but seeing Lord Norris had not observed it, he went on with this misreckoning of ten: so it was reported that they that were for the Bill were in the majority, though indeed it went for the other side: and by this means the Bill passed. [11]

In the words of historian Helen Nutting, this miscount story is "highly improbable". [8] Proponents of the story cite as supporting evidence a discrepancy between the vote total and the attendance count in the parliamentary minutes: the clerk recorded in the minutes of the Lords that the "ayes" had fifty-seven and the "nays" had fifty-five, a total of 112, but the same minutes also state that only 107 Lords had attended that sitting. However, the attendance counts in the minute book were frequently inaccurate, and the attendance count is off by five rather than nine, undermining rather than supporting Burnet's reminiscence. [12] According to Nutting, had the vote been miscounted, King James II would almost certainly have "taken advantage of a real miscount to overturn the act", since he opposed it. [8]

King Charles II assented to the Act in 1679 since, Nutting explains, "it was no longer controversial". [8] The Act is now stored in the Parliamentary Archives.

Application in New Zealand

The Habeas Corpus Act 1679 [13] and the later acts of 1803, 1804, 1816 and 1862 were reprinted in New Zealand as Imperial Acts in force in New Zealand in 1881. [14] The 1679 act, along with the 1640 and 1816 acts, was retained in New Zealand law by the Imperial Laws Application Act 1988. They were later repealed and replaced by the Habeas Corpus Act 2001. [15] [16]

See also

Notes

  1. The citation of this Act by this short title was authorised by the Short Titles Act 1896, section 1 and first schedule. Due to the repeal of that provision it is now authorised by the Interpretation Act 1978, section 19(2)
  2. "Charles II, 1679: An Act for the better secureing the Liberty of the Subject and for Prevention of Imprisonments beyond the Seas". Statutes of the Realm: volume 5: 1628–80 (1819). British History Online. pp. 935–938. Retrieved 6 March 2007.
  3. 1 2 "A brief history of habeas corpus". BBC News. 9 March 2005. Retrieved 25 October 2014.
  4. "Assize of Clarendon, 1166". The Avalon Project. Retrieved 2 October 2016.
  5. "Habeas Corpus Act 1679". Legislation.gov.uk. Retrieved 2 October 2016.
  6. Acevedo, John Filipe (212). Miller, Wilbur R. (ed.). The Social History of Crime and Punishment in America: An Encyclopedia. London, United Kingdom: SAGE Publications Ltd. p. 729.
  7. Jon. E. Lewis., ed. (2003). A Documentary History of Human Rights. New York: Carroll & Graf Publishers. p. 267. Habeas Corpus Act (1679). In 1660, the Stuarts re-ascended the throne of England. Old tendencies towards Catholicism and absolutism proved little diminished, however, and a prudently watchful parliament determined to pass an Act enshrining Habeas Corpus. This was an ancient English right that, if a man was imprisoned by a local lord, his friends could request the king to issue a writ commanding the man who 'have the body' (Habeas Corpus) of the prisoner to bring the prisoner before a magistrate for a proper trial. Under a tyrannous king, such as Charles I, the process could be wilfully ignored. In 1679, Parliament passed the Habeas Corpus Act against future abuse.
  8. 1 2 3 4 Nutting, Helen A. (April 1960). "The Most Wholesome Law—The Habeas Corpus Act of 1679". American Historical Review. 65 (3): 527–543. doi:10.2307/1849620. JSTOR   1849620.
  9. Clark & McCoy (2000 , p. 37).
  10. Silk, Paul; Walters, Rhodri (1998). How Parliament Works (4th ed.). Harlow, England: Longman. pp. 92–93. ISBN   0-582-32745-8. OL   352444M.
  11. Quoted from Burnet's The History of My Own Time in Davies, Godfrey; Klotz, Edith L. (July 1940). "The Habeas Corpus Act of 1679 in the House of Lords". Huntington Library Quarterly. 3 (4): 469–470. doi:10.2307/3815721 .
  12. Davies, Godfrey; Klotz, Edith L. (July 1940). "The Habeas Corpus Act of 1679 in the House of Lords". Huntington Library Quarterly. 3 (4): 469–470. doi:10.2307/3815721 . Godfrey and Klotz explain, "Simple arithmetic would seem to show that Burnet's story cannot be literally correct, for clearly, if 112 peers voted in the division and only 107 were present, counting one fat peer as ten would not explain the difference of five in the totals" and "the list of members present on any day in the House of Lords cannot be accepted implicitly as evidence that no more were present on that day."
  13. "Habeas Corpus Act 1679". New Zealand Law online.
  14. "Habeas Corpus Acts". New Zealand Law online.
  15. "Imperial Laws Application Act 1988 | Schedule 1". legislation.govt.nz. Parliamentary Counsel Office. Retrieved 17 September 2023.
  16. "Habeas Corpus Act 2001, section 22". legislation.govt.nz. Parliamentary Counsel Office. Retrieved 17 September 2023.

Related Research Articles

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Parliament of the United Kingdom</span> Legislative body in the United Kingdom

The Parliament of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland is the supreme legislative body of the United Kingdom, and may also legislate for the Crown Dependencies and the British Overseas Territories. It meets at the Palace of Westminster in London. Parliament possesses legislative supremacy and thereby holds ultimate power over all other political bodies in the United Kingdom and the Overseas Territories. While Parliament is bicameral, it has three parts: the sovereign (King-in-Parliament), the House of Lords, and the House of Commons. In theory, power is officially vested in the King-in-Parliament. However, the Crown normally acts on the advice of the prime minister, and the powers of the House of Lords are limited to only delaying legislation; thus power is de facto vested in the House of Commons.

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">Bill of Rights 1689</span> English civil rights legislation

The Bill of Rights 1689 is an Act of the Parliament of England that set out certain basic civil rights and clarified who would be next to inherit the Crown. It remains a crucial statute in English constitutional law.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">History of the constitution of the United Kingdom</span>

The constitution of the United Kingdom is an uncodified constitution made up of various statutes, judicial precedents, convention, treaties and other sources. Beginning in the Middle Ages, the constitution developed gradually in response to various crises. By the 20th century, the British monarchy had become a constitutional and ceremonial monarchy, and Parliament developed into a representative body exercising parliamentary sovereignty.

<i>Ex parte Merryman</i> United States legal case

Ex parte Merryman, 17 F. Cas. 144 (No. 9487), was a controversial U.S. federal court case that arose out of the American Civil War. It was a test of the authority of the President to suspend "the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus" under the Constitution's Suspension Clause, when Congress was in recess and therefore unavailable to do so itself. More generally, the case raised questions about the ability of the executive branch to decline to enforce judicial decisions when the executive believes them to be erroneous and harmful to its own legal powers.

<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 1638 to 1653 Wars of the Three Kingdoms, ultimately resolved in the 1688-89 Glorious Revolution.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Cavalier Parliament</span> Parliament of England (1661–1679)

The Cavalier Parliament of England lasted from 8 May 1661 until 24 January 1679. It was the longest English Parliament, and longer than any Great British or UK Parliament to date, enduring for nearly 18 years of the quarter-century reign of Charles II of England. Like its predecessor, the Convention Parliament, it was overwhelmingly Royalist and is also known as the Pensioner Parliament for the many pensions it granted to adherents of the King.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Anthony Ashley Cooper, 1st Earl of Shaftesbury</span> English politician and founder of the Whig party (1621-1683)

Anthony Ashley Cooper, 1st Earl of Shaftesbury PC, FRS, was an English statesman and peer. He held senior political office under both the Commonwealth of England and Charles II, serving as Chancellor of the Exchequer from 1661 to 1672 and Lord Chancellor from 1672 to 1673. During the Exclusion Crisis, Shaftesbury headed the movement to bar the Catholic heir, James II, from the royal succession, which is often seen as the origin of the Whig party. He was also a patron of the political philosopher John Locke, with whom Shaftesbury collaborated with in writing the Fundamental Constitutions of Carolina in 1669.

In the 1760s William Blackstone described the Fundamental Laws of England in Commentaries on the Laws of England, Book the First – Chapter the First : Of the Absolute Rights of Individuals as "the absolute rights of every Englishman" and traced their basis and evolution as follows:

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Exclusion Crisis</span> Crisis of succession England, 1679–1681

The Exclusion Crisis ran from 1679 until 1681 in the reign of King Charles II of England, Scotland and Ireland. Three Exclusion Bills sought to exclude the King's brother and heir presumptive, James, Duke of York, from the thrones of England, Scotland and Ireland because he was Catholic. None became law. Two new parties formed. The Tories were opposed to this exclusion while the "Country Party", who were soon to be called the Whigs, supported it. While the matter of James's exclusion was not decided in Parliament during Charles's reign, it would come to a head only three years after James took the throne, when he was deposed in the Glorious Revolution of 1688. Finally, the Act of Settlement 1701 decided definitively that Catholics were to be excluded from the English, Scottish and Irish thrones, now the British throne.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Prevention of Terrorism Act 2005</span> United Kingdom legislation

The Prevention of Terrorism Act 2005 was an Act of the Parliament of the United Kingdom, intended to deal with the Law Lords' ruling of 16 December 2004 that the detention without trial of eight foreigners at HM Prison Belmarsh under Part 4 of the Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001 was unlawful, being incompatible with European human rights laws.

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">Habeas Corpus Act 1640</span> United Kingdom legislation

The Habeas Corpus Act 1640 was an Act of the Parliament of England.

The Habeas Corpus Bill of 1758 was a failed bill that would have extended habeas corpus if passed.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Act of Parliament (UK)</span> Primary legislation in the United Kingdom

An Act of Parliament in the United Kingdom is primary legislation passed by the UK Parliament in Westminster, London.

R v Secretary of State for Home Affairs ex parte O'Brien [1923] 2 KB 361 was a 1923 test case in English law that sought to have the internment and deportation of Irish nationalist sympathisers earlier that year declared legally invalid. In March 1923 between 80 and 100 suspected Irish nationalists in Britain were arrested by the police and sent to the Irish Free State under the Restoration of Order in Ireland Act 1920 (ROIA). One of the detainees, Art O'Brien, challenged his detention in a test case at the Divisional Court. The case eventually went to both the Court of Appeal and House of Lords, who decided that the internments were illegal because the Irish Free State was an independent nation and so British Acts of Parliament no longer applied to it.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Habeas Corpus Parliament</span>

The Habeas Corpus Parliament, also known as the First Exclusion Parliament, was a short-lived English Parliament which assembled on 6 March 1679 during the reign of Charles II of England, the third parliament of the King's reign. It is named after the Habeas Corpus Act, which it enacted in May 1679.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Habeas Corpus Suspension Act (1863)</span> American Law during the Civil War

The Habeas Corpus Suspension Act, 12 Stat. 755 (1863), entitled An Act relating to Habeas Corpus, and regulating Judicial Proceedings in Certain Cases, was an Act of Congress that authorized the president of the United States to suspend the right of habeas corpus in response to the American Civil War and provided for the release of political prisoners. It began in the House of Representatives as an indemnity bill, introduced on December 5, 1862, releasing the president and his subordinates from any liability for having suspended habeas corpus without congressional approval. The Senate amended the House's bill, and the compromise reported out of the conference committee altered it to qualify the indemnity and to suspend habeas corpus on Congress's own authority. Abraham Lincoln signed the bill into law on March 3, 1863, and suspended habeas corpus under the authority it granted him six months later. The suspension was partially lifted with the issuance of Proclamation 148 by Andrew Johnson, and the Act became inoperative with the end of the Civil War. The exceptions to Johnson's Proclamation 148 were the States of Virginia, Kentucky, Tennessee, North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia, Florida, Alabama, Mississippi, Louisiana, Arkansas, and Texas, the District of Columbia, and the Territories of New Mexico and Arizona.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Habeas Corpus Act 1816</span> United Kingdom legislation

The Habeas Corpus Act 1816 or Serjeant Onslow's Act 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.

In United Kingdom constitutional law, prorogation is an act usually used to mark the end of a parliamentary session. Part of the royal prerogative, it is the name given to the period between the end of a session of the UK Parliament and the State Opening of Parliament that begins the next session. The average length of prorogation since 2000 is approximately 18 days. The parliamentary session may also be prorogued before Parliament is dissolved. The power to prorogue Parliament belongs to the monarch, on the advice of the Privy Council. Like all prerogative powers, it is not left to the personal discretion of the monarch but is to be exercised, on the advice of the prime minister, according to law.

References