Open main menu
Home
Random
Recent changes
Special pages
Community portal
Preferences
About Wikipedia
Disclaimers
Incubator escapee wiki
Search
User menu
Talk
Dark mode
Contributions
Create account
Log in
Editing
Defence Regulation 18B
(section)
Warning:
You are not logged in. Your IP address will be publicly visible if you make any edits. If you
log in
or
create an account
, your edits will be attributed to your username, along with other benefits.
Anti-spam check. Do
not
fill this in!
==Legal process and challenging detention== There were two justifications for an order to intern: "acts prejudicial to the public safety" and "hostile origin or associations". A detainee could challenge their detention by way of an appeal to an Advisory Committee headed by [[William Norman Birkett, 1st Baron Birkett|Norman Birkett]]. The committee would be presented with a statement of the reasons why detention had been proposed, drawn up by [[MI5]], which the detainee was not permitted to see. The committee could recommend continued detention, release under conditions or unconditional release. The committee's recommendations went to the Home Secretary, who was not bound to accept them, and MI5 often lobbied him not to accept a recommendation to release. Some detainees attempted to take further action through the courts. Challenges were brought on the basis of ''[[habeas corpus]]'', but refused on the grounds that the Home Secretary had taken his decision to intern on the basis of reports that had to be kept secret, and that he had reasonable cause to sign the internment orders. The most significant case was ''[[Liversidge v Anderson]]'', brought by [[Robert W. Liversidge]] who was a successful Jewish businessman and therefore a highly atypical 18B internee. He brought a civil action for damages for false imprisonment, but did not apply for ''habeas corpus''. It was ultimately decided that where it is required in law that a minister "has reasonable cause to believe" something before acting, a court can inquire into whether he really did believe it, but not into whether the things causing this belief were true. [[Lord Atkin]] wrote a dissent from this judgment. [[Archibald Maule Ramsay]], the only MP detained, had the matter referred to the [[British House of Commons|House of Commons]] [[Committee on Standards and Privileges|Committee on Privileges]] for a ruling as to whether the detention of an MP was a breach of the [[Privilege of Parliament]]. The committee decided that it was not.
Edit summary
(Briefly describe your changes)
By publishing changes, you agree to the
Terms of Use
, and you irrevocably agree to release your contribution under the
CC BY-SA 4.0 License
and the
GFDL
. You agree that a hyperlink or URL is sufficient attribution under the Creative Commons license.
Cancel
Editing help
(opens in new window)