Skip to main content

Liversidge v. Anderson (UK, 1942)

By


 

Liversidge v. Anderson

[1942] AC 206 (House of Lords)

Background / Facts

  • During World War II, the UK government exercised emergency powers under Regulation 18B of the Defence (General) Regulations, 1939.

  • Regulation 18B allowed the Home Secretary to detain a person if he had “reasonable cause to believe” that the person was of hostile associations.

  • Robert Liversidge was detained without trial.

  • He challenged his detention, arguing that:

    • The Home Secretary had no reasonable grounds.

    • Courts should examine whether the belief was objectively justified.

Legal Issues

  1. What does “reasonable cause to believe” mean?

  2. Can courts review the reasonableness of the executive’s belief?

  3. How far should courts defer to the executive during wartime?

Majority Judgment (4:1)

Held: Detention lawful.

Key Reasoning:

  • “Reasonable cause to believe” means the Home Secretary’s subjective satisfaction, not objective review.

  • Courts should not second-guess executive decisions in matters of national security.

  • In wartime, executive discretion must be broad.

👉 Effectively, the Home Secretary’s decision was final and non-justiciable.

Dissenting Judgment – Lord Atkin (Historic Dissent)

(Now regarded as the correct view)

Key Points:

  • Courts must not abandon rule of law during emergencies.

  • “Reasonable cause” requires an objective standard, reviewable by courts.

  • Judges are not “more executive-minded than the executive.”

📜 Famous quote:

“In this country, amid the clash of arms, the laws are not silent.”

Outcome

  • Appeal dismissed

  • Detention upheld

  • Executive power affirmed

Why This Case Is Notorious

  • Seen as excessive judicial deference to the executive.

  • Allowed detention without trial based on unchecked discretion.

  • Often cited alongside ADM Jabalpur (India) as an example of courts failing during emergencies.

Later Developments

  • The majority view has been discredited.

  • Lord Atkin’s dissent is now widely accepted as reflecting the true constitutional position.

  • Influenced modern UK public law emphasizing:

    • Judicial review

    • Proportionality

    • Human rights protection (post-Human Rights Act, 1998)

Legal Significance

  • Illustrates tension between:

    • National security and individual liberty

    • Executive discretion and judicial oversight

  • A cornerstone case for understanding constitutional emergencies

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

🌍 Human Rights Cases Brown v. Board of Education (1954) – USA

By
  Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka (1954) 📍 Court Supreme Court of the United States 👥 Parties Plaintiff:   Oliver Brown  (on behalf of his daughter,  Linda Brown ) Defendant:   Board of Education of Topeka, Kansas 📜 Facts of the Case Linda Brown, an African-American child, was  denied admission  to a white public school close to her home. She was forced to attend a  segregated Black school  much farther away. The segregation was legal under the doctrine of  “separate but equal”  established in  Plessy v. Ferguson (1896) . ⚖️ Legal Issue Does racial segregation in public schools violate the  Equal Protection Clause  of the  14th Amendment  of the U.S. Constitution? 📖 Law Involved 14th Amendment  – Equal Protection Clause 🧠 Arguments Plaintiffs argued: Segregation creates a sense of  inferiority  among Black children. Separate educational facilities are  inherently unequal . Defe...
Post a Comment
Read more

Marbury v. Madison (1803)

By
  Marbury v. Madison (1803) 📍 Court Supreme Court of the United States 👥 Parties Plaintiff: William Marbury Defendant: James Madison (Secretary of State) 📜 Facts of the Case In 1801, outgoing President John Adams appointed several judges (“ midnight judges ”). William Marbury was appointed Justice of the Peace . His commission was signed and sealed but not delivered before Adams left office. New President Thomas Jefferson ordered Secretary of State James Madison not to deliver the commission. Marbury filed a case directly in the Supreme Court, asking for a writ of mandamus to compel Madison to deliver it. ⚖️ Legal Issues Did Marbury have a right to the commission? If yes, was there a legal remedy? Could the Supreme Court issue a writ of mandamus under its original jurisdiction ? 📖 Laws Involved Article III of the U.S. Constitution Judiciary Act of 1789 , Section 13 🧠 Court’s Reasoning (Chief Justice John Marshall...
Post a Comment
Read more