Liversidge v Sir John Anderson: HL 3 Nov Cited – Regina v Secretary of State for the Home Department Ex Parte Abdi, Same v Same. In Rex v. Leman Street Police Station Inspector (1) it was held that art. an order made by Sir John Anderson as Home Secretary on May 26, , under reg. There was a 4/5 ruling AGAINST Liversidge in , it was ruled that no court can investigate whether the Secretary of State had reasonable.
|Published (Last):||21 April 2009|
|PDF File Size:||20.45 Mb|
|ePub File Size:||18.3 Mb|
|Price:||Free* [*Free Regsitration Required]|
Liversidge v Anderson  UKHL 1 is a landmark United Kingdom administrative law case which concerned the relationship between the courts and the state, and in particular the assistance that the judiciary should give to the executive in times of national emergency.
At this stage we are quite clear that the plaintiff is wrong in his proposition as to the burden of proof inherently resting upon himself and upon the defendants respectively. They sprang to state it very broadly from the Stuart theory that the King was King by divine right and that his powers were above the law.
Officer Administering the Government of Nigeria 2. For it is obvious that at the trial the appellant would not be content with merely proving that he was detained in prison. As Lord Parker said in The Zamora 1: The argument on construction has primarily turned upon para.
This is made plainer by the express and unconditional power given by 14A 3. The legislature obviously proceeds on the footing that there may be certain persons against whom no offence is proved livefsidge any charge formulated, but as regards whom it may be expedient to authorize the Secretary of State to make an order for detention. That is in accordance with a general rule applicable to the interpretation of all statutes or statutory regulations in peace time as well as in andsrson time.
I have given my reasons for agreeing andersob them, and I would go further and say that, in view of the particulars, as to which I take it to be proved that the Secretary of State had information which he could reasonably believe, the Secretary of State has established reasonable cause for believing both the hostile associations and the necessity to control.
This seems to me, with respect, to be fantastic.
My Lords, I think we should approach the construction of reg. It seems to me reasonably clear that, if the thing to be believed is something which is essentially one within the knowledge of A.
Lister 3 Kelly C. My Lords, that this question is not only of importance but is also one of considerable difficulty appears sufficiently from the fact that it has given rise to a difference of opinion among your Lordships. I say nothing as to the efficacy of this safeguard, for I do not know how it operates in practice, but I emphasize the significance of its presence in the regulation.
Liversage v Anderson  | Case Summary | Webstroke Law
My Lords, for these reasons I would dismiss this appeal. No other meaning has ever been suggested.
The production by the Secretary of State of an order of detention, made by him and ex facie regular and duly authenticated, constitutes a defence to such an action unless the plaintiff discharges the burden of establishing that the order is invalid: Before dealing with the construction of the regulation, it is desirable to consider how the matter should be approached.
The general rule of law in these cases is well stated by Abbot C. Parliament excludes the jurisdiction of the courts and substitutes in the one case a specially constituted administrative body, in a case like the present the Secretary of State. Even a judge may be allowed to take notice of the import of words like Fifth Columnists and Quislings and the like.
The responsibility remains with the executive. In these circumstances the respondents might reasonably have applied for particulars of the alleged invalidity of the order. He asked by it that para. I will go further and show that until June or July of this year in connection with this reg.
Indeed, if that had been contemplated I think that there must have been express words giving it.
Liversage v Anderson 
It is not ad rem on the question of construction to say in reply to this argument that there are cases in which the Secretary of State could answer the attack on the validity of the order for detention without liversidgd the point of privilege.
The Secretary of State may by order provide for empowering any regional commissioner who has reasonable cause to believe any person to be [as specified in reg. The supposed difficulty is grossly exaggerated, even if it is not a fantasy.
His ipse dixit avails nothing. His affidavit does not claim privilege in the correct form, but he instructed the Attorney-General on his andedson to claim privilege which in this case, in the absence of any objection to this course by the applicant, must be taken. Smith and Son, Ld. It is said on behalf of the appellant that such provisions are no substitute for a trial before an independent judge and that the committees are chosen by the Secretary and that the Secretary andreson decline to attend to their advice.
Thus I find the following andereon used with relation to various powers confided to various persons: Similarly the blackmailer is not kiversidge person to judge that he had reasonable cause for the demand: In the Liversidge case the only question raised is in an action for false imprisonment brought by the appellant.
Is it discharged by production of the order purporting to be made by Sir John Anderson under the regulation, or must the respondents prove in addition that the order was justified in the circumstances?