Showing posts with label courts. Show all posts
Showing posts with label courts. Show all posts

Monday, December 7, 2009

Writ of Habeus Corpus

Background
In 1641, the Star Chamber (Latin Camera stellata) was an English court of law sitting at the royal Palace of Westminster.
The court was set up to ensure the fair enforcement of laws against prominent people, those so powerful that ordinary courts could never convict them of their crimes.
Court sessions were held in secret, with no indictments, no right of appeal, no juries, and no witnesses.
Evidence was presented in writing.
And over time it evolved into a political weapon and became a symbol of the misuse and abuse of power by the English monarchy and courts.
King Henry VII used the power of Star Chamber to break the power of the landed gentry which had been such a cause of problems in the War of the Roses.

Abuses
As the U.S Supreme Court described it, "the Star Chamber has, for centuries, symbolized disregard of basic individual rights. The Star Chamber not merely allowed, but required, defendants to have counsel. The defendant's answer to an indictment was not accepted unless it was signed by counsel. When counsel refused to sign the answer, for whatever reason, the defendant was considered to have confessed." Faretta v California, 422 U.S. 806, 821-22 (1975).
Too, the historical abuses of the Star Chamber are considered a primary motivating force behind the protections against compelled self-incrimination embodied in theFifth Amendment to the United States Constitution.
The meaning of "compelled testimony" under the Fifth Amendment—i.e., the conditions under which a defendant is allowed to "take the Fifth"—is thus often interpreted via reference to the inquisitorial methods of the Star Chamber.

Habeus Corpus
The foundations for Habeas Corpus were established by the Magna Carta of 1215. William Blackstone cites the first recorded usage of habeas corpus ad subjiciendum in 1305, during the reign of King Edward I.
However, other writs were issued with the same effect as early as the reign of Henry II in the 12th century. Blackstone explained the basis of the writ, saying:
"The King is at all times entitled to have an account, why the liberty of any of his subjects is restrained, wherever that restraint may be inflicted."

Therefore, in 1641, theLong Parliament led byJohn Pym and inflamed by the severe treatment of John Lilburne, as well as that of other religious dissenters such as William Prynne, Alexander Leighton, John Bastwick & Henry Burton, abolished the Star Chamber with an Act of Parliament, the Habeus Corpus Act 1640.

Then, as now, the writ of habeas corpus was issued by a superior court in the name of the Sovereign, and commanded the addressee (a lower court, sheriff, or private subject) to produce the prisoner before the Royal courts of law.

A habeas corpus petition could be made by the prisoner himself or by a third party on his behalf and, as a result of the Habeas Corpus Acts, could be made regardless of whether the court was in session, by presenting the petition to a judge.

Since the 18th century the writ has also been used in cases of unlawful detention by private individuals, most famously in Somersett's Case (1771), where the black slave Somersett was ordered to be freed, the famous words being quoted as:
"The air of England has long been too pure for a slave, and every man is free who breathes it."

A Writ of Habeus Corpus
Habeus Corpus means "You have the body."
In common usage, and whenever these words are used alone, they are understood to mean ""produce the body."
Therefore, when someone is arrested, this writ would be directed at the "jailor", commanding him to produce the body of the person being detained, with the day and cause of his capture and detention, to submit to and receive whatsoever the judge or court awarding the writ shall consider and determine as a judgment in the matter.
This then prevents a person from being held in illegal captivity, with no trial.
  • Habeas corpus ad deliberandum et recipiendum, a writ for bringing an accused from a different county into a court in the place where a crime had been committed for purposes of trial, or more literally to return holding the body for purposes of “deliberation and receipt” of a decision;
  • Habeas corpus ad faciendum et recipiendum, also called habeas corpus cum causa, a writ of a superior court to a custodian to return with the body being held by the order of a lower court "with reasons", for the purpose of “receiving” the decision of the superior court and of “doing” what it ordered;
  • Habeas corpus ad prosequendum, a writ ordering return with a prisoner for the purpose of “prosecuting” him before the court;
  • Habeas corpus ad respondendum, a writ ordering return to allow the prisoner to “answer” to new proceedings before the court;
  • Habeas corpus ad satisfaciendum, a writ ordering return with the body of a prisoner for “satisfaction” or execution of a judgment of the issuing court; and
  • Habeas corpus ad testificandum, a writ ordering return with the body of a prisoner for the purposes of “testifying”.
Habeus Corpus in Australia
The writ of habeas corpus as a procedural remedy is part of Australia's English law inheritance.
In 2005, the Australian parliament passed the Australian Ant-Terrorism Act 2005. Some legal experts questioned the constitutionality of the act, due in part to limitations it placed on habeas corpus.

Bill of Rights 1689

After defeating James II in 5 November 1688 and before they were affirmed as co-rulers of England and Ireland, William of Orange & Mary accepted a Declaration of Right onFebruary 13, 1689.
They were then crowned as joint monarchs in April 1689.
The Declaration of Right was later embodied in an Act of Parliament, now known as the Bill of Rights, onDecember 16, 1689.

The basic tenets (definition: possessions/holdings in virtue of the title) of the Bill of Rights 1689 are:
  • All Englishmen (embodied by parliament) had certain immutable civil and political rights including:
  • The King was forbidden to create his own courts or act as judge in order to interfere with laws
  • Royal taxation without agreement by Parliament was forbidden.
  • All men had the freedom to petition the Monarch,
  • Freedom from a peace-time standing army, without agreement by Parliament
  • freedom [for Protestants] to have arms for their defence, suitable to their class status and as allowed by law
  • Freedom to elect members of Parliament without interference from the Sovereign
  • Freedom of speech in Parliament, in that proceedings in Parliament were not to be questioned in the courts or in any body outside Parliament itself (the basis of modern parliamentary privilege)
  • Freedom from cruel and unusual punishments, and excessive bail
  • Freedom from fines and forfeitures without trial

NOTE: It is very important to note that while this document is still in use in many countries, the Australian government have stated clearly that the Bill of Rights 1688 is no longer relevant to Australian law. Yet Federal Government used it as late as 1995 to protect any government minister from being impeached for anything that is said on the floor of Parliament. This was well after their original statements that it was no longer relevant in Australia.