Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-g7gxr Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-09T16:53:19.825Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Personal Freedom and the Dilemma of Democracies

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  17 January 2008

Tom Bingham
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

We are indebted to Professor Brian Simpson, in his brilliant work on executive detension in wartime Britain,1 for giving greater prominence to a very characteristic and memorable Churchillian utterance:

Type
Research Article
Information
International & Comparative Law Quarterly , Volume 52 , Issue 4 , October 2003 , pp. 841 - 858
Copyright
Copyright © British Institute of International and Comparative Law 2003

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 Simpson, AW Brian, In the Highest Degree Odious: Detention without Trial in Wartime Britain (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1994). I have drawn very heavily on the invaluable work of professor Simpson, to whom I should at the outset acknowledge my great debt. I should also acknowledege the great help given to me in preparing this lecture by my judicial assistant (until recently), Mr Akash Nawbatt.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

2 Ibid, 391.

3 Churchill, W, The Second World War, vol II (Cassell, 1949), 627.Google Scholar

4 See Gillman, and Gillman, , ‘Collar the Lot!’ (Quartet, 1980), 153, 309.Google Scholar

5 R v Secretary of State for the Home Department Exparte Bugdaycay [1987] 1 AC 514, at 531F.Google Scholar

6 European Convention, Arts 3, 15.2.Google Scholar

7 In R v Secreary of State for the Home Department Exparte Cheblak [1991] 1 WLR 890, at 894 Lord Donaldson of Lymington MR observed that ‘we have all been brought up to believe, and do believe, that the liberty of the citizen under the law is the most fundamental of all freedoms’.Google Scholar

8 Holdsworth, , A History of English Law, 3rd edn (1966), vol IX, 104.Google Scholar

9 3ST 1.Google Scholar

10 Gardiner, , The Constitutional Documents of the Puritan Revolution (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1979), 209–10, Arts 11–15.Google Scholar

11 Holdsworth, , op cit, vol IX, 116–18.Google Scholar

12 Bell, DA, ‘Safeguarding the Rights of the Accused: Lawyers and Political Trials in France, 1716–1789’, in VanKley, (ed), The French Idea of Freedom: The Old Regime and the Declaration of Rights of 1789 (Stanford, 1994), 248.Google Scholar

13 Ibid, 234.

14 Ibid, 235.

15 Arts 3, 9.Google Scholar

16 Art 9.Google Scholar

17 Art 5.Google Scholar

18 Fifth Amendment to the constitution.Google Scholar

19 Art 40, (4.1), (4.2).Google Scholar

20 Arts 21, 22.Google Scholar

21 Section 12(1).Google Scholar

22 Arts 7, 9.Google Scholar

23 Sections 22, 23.Google Scholar

24 Sections 24 and 25 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984.Google Scholar

25 Sections 2, 3, 4, and 5 of the Mental Health Act 1983.Google Scholar

26 Immigration Act 1971: para 16 of schedule 2, para 2 of schedule 3.Google Scholar

27 Through the common law the crimes of false imprisonment and kidnapping and the statutory offences of child abduction and hostage taking.Google Scholar

28 Through the tort of false imprisonment.Google Scholar

29 Sharpe, , The Law of Habeas Corpus (Oxford, 1989), 94–5;Google ScholarForsyth, , Cases and Opinions on Constitutional Law (Stevens-Haynes, 1869), 452.Google Scholar

30 See Holdsworth, op cit, vol XIII, 162.Google Scholar

31 Ibid, 203.

32 Ibid, vol XI, p.26.

33 Simpson, , In the Highest Degree Odious, 34.Google ScholarSee also id, Human Rights and the End of Empire (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2001), 79–80.Google Scholar

34 Ibid, 1081–2.

35 Ibid, 83

36 Ibid, 878.

37 Ibid, 879.

38 Ibid.

39 Ibid.

40 Ibid, 881.

41 Ibid, 909.

42 Ibid.

43 Ibid, 910.

44 Simpson, , In the Highest Degree Odious, 15.Google Scholar

45 Ibid, 13.

46 Ibid, 17.

47 Ibid.

48 Ibid, 27–8.

49 Ibid, 28, 31–3.

50 Ibid, 21–2.

51 [1916] 1 KB 738, at 740.Google Scholar

52 [1917] AC 260, at 263.Google Scholar

53 [1916] 1 KB 738, at 740.Google Scholar

54 [1916] 1 KG 738 [1917] AC 260.Google Scholar

55 R v Denison (1916) 32 TLR 528 (Lord Reading CJ, Scrutton and Avory JJ).Google Scholar

56 Ex p Howsin (1917) 33 TLR 527 (Pickford and Scrutton LJJ and Neville J).Google Scholar

57 Ronnfeldt v Phillips (1918) 34 TLR 553 (Darling J)Google Scholar

58 (1918) 35 TLR 46.Google Scholar

59 Per Bankes LJ, at 46.Google Scholar

60 Per Scrutton LJ at 47.Google Scholar

61 Per Warrington LJ, at 47; but Scrutton LJ disagreed, 47.Google Scholar

62 R v Governor of Wormwood Scrubbs Prison [1920] 2 KB 305.Google Scholar

63 At 311.Google Scholar

64 R v Inspector of Cannon Row Police Station Exp Brady (1921) 37 TLR 854 (Lawrence CJ, Shearman and Sankey JJ).Google Scholar

65 Brady v Gibb (1921) 37 TLR 975.Google Scholar

66 At 977.Google Scholar

67 Ibid.

68 R v Secretary of State for Home Affairs Ex parte O'Brien [1923] 2 KB 361.Google Scholar

69 [1923] AC 603.Google Scholar

70 [1923] 2 KB 361, at 400.Google Scholar

71 Simpson, , In the Highest Degree Odious, 32–3.Google Scholar

72 Ibid, 42.

73 [1917] AC 260.Google Scholar

74 Simpson, , In the Highest Degree Odious, 48.Google Scholar

75 Ibid, 58.

76 R v Inland Revenue Commissioners Ex p Rossminster Ltd [1980] AC 952, at 1011.Google Scholar

77 Simpson, , In the Highest Degree Odious, 53, 78.Google Scholar

78 Ibid, 185. Churchill, , The Second World War, vol 2, 49.Google Scholar

79 Ibid, 107.

80 Ibid, 108.

81 Ibid, 163, 258.

82 Ibid, 108.

83 Churchill, , The Second World War, vol II, 246.Google Scholar

84 Simpson, , In the Highest Degree Odious, 222.Google Scholar

85 Ibid, 222.

86 Some Were Spies (Hodden & Stoughton, 1954), 15.Google ScholarPubMed

87 Simpson, , In the Highest Degree Odious, 267.Google Scholar

88 Ibid, 403.

89 Ibid, 404.

90 Ibid, 414.

91 Ibid, 166, 407.

92 Ibid, 390–1.

93 R v Secretary of State for Home Affairs Ex p Lees [1941] 1 KB 72 (Humphreys, Oliver and Croom-Johnson JJ), at 74–5. Simpson, no doubt rightly, describes Lees as ‘a pretty nasty piece of work’: ‘Detention Without Trial’, n 154 below, 257. In an affidavit he averred ‘I do not like Jews…I do not like Lord Halifax’: see [1941] 1 KB 72, at 75.Google Scholar

94 See ‘Detention Without Trial’, n 154 below, 257.Google Scholar

95 [1941] 1 KB 72, at 78.Google Scholar

96 At 75.Google Scholar

97 At 79.Google Scholar

98 Ibid, at 80 (MacKinnon, Goddard and du Parcq LJJ).

99 At 84.Google Scholar

100 Such as that in Stuart v Anderson and Morrison [1941] 2 All ER 665 where, in an action claiming damages for false imprisonment, Tucker J held that he could not enquire whether successive Home Secretaries had had reasonable cause to detain the plaintiff: see 670–1.Google Scholar

101 R v Home Secretary Ex p Budd [1941] 2 All ER 749, at 751, 760.Google Scholar

102 Per Caldecote LCJ, at 754.Google Scholar

103 Ibid, at 756.

104 Ibid, at 758.

105 Ibid, at 759.

106 Ibid, at 764–65.

107 R v Secretary of State for Home Affairs Ex p Budd [1942] 2 KB 14.Google Scholar

108 Budd v Anderson [1943] KB 642.Google Scholar

109 Liversidge v Anderson [1942] AC 206.Google Scholar

110 Greene v Secretary of State for Home Affairs [1942] AC 284.Google Scholar

111 See among other works, Heuston, , ‘Liversidge v Anderson in Retrospect’ (1970) 86 LQR 33;Google ScholarSimpson, , ‘Rhetoric, Reality and Regulation 18B’ (1988) Denning Law J 123;Google Scholarid, In the Highest Degree Odious, ch 16;Google ScholarBingham, T., ‘Mr Perlzweig, Mr Liversidge and Lord Atkin’; The Business of Judging (Oxford, 2000), 211.Google Scholar

112 R v Brixton Prison (Governor) Exp Pitt-Rivers [1942] 1 All ER 207.Google Scholar

113 Simpson, , ‘Rhetoric, Reality and Regulation 18B’, at 136–42; id, In the Highest Degree Odious, at 341; information supplied by Professor Simpson.Google Scholar

114 R v Inland Revenue Commissioners Exp Rossminster Ltd [1980] AC 952, at 1011.Google Scholar

115 Simpson, , ‘Rhetoric, Reality and Regulation 18B’, at 151; id, In the Highest Degree Odious, at 363, 419.Google Scholar

116 Id, ‘Rhetoric, Reality, and Regulation 18B’, at 125. A number of other cases not reported in the Law Reports are discussed by ProfessorSimpson, in ‘Rhetoric, Reality and Regulation 18B’ and In the Highest Degree Odious.Google Scholar

117 Persico, Joseph E, Roosevelt's Secret War (Random House, 2001) at 168, 439.Google Scholar

118 Ozawa v US 260 US 178 (1922).Google Scholar

119 Persico, op cit, 68.Google Scholar

120 Ibid, at 168.

121 Coombs, FA, ‘Congressional Opinion and War Relocation, 1943’, in Daniels, R et al. , Japanese Americans: From Relocation to Redress (Utah: University of Utah Press, 1986), at 91.Google Scholar

122 Persico, op cit, 168.Google Scholar

123 Ibid, at 130–1, 167–70, 439–40. Since one of these intelligence sources had recently explored a plan to inject Hitler's vegetarian diet with female hormones so that his moustache would fall out and his voice turn soprano, the President's reliance might seem surprising: Persico, op cit, 166.

124 Ibid, at 439.

125 Daniels, R, ‘Relocation, Redress and the Report: A Historical Appraisal’, in Japanese Americans, above, at 7.Google Scholar

126 Hata, and Hata, , “Justice Delayed But Not Denied’, in Saunders, and Daniels, (eds), Alien Justice: Wartime Internment in Australia and North America (Queensland: University of Queensland, 2000), at 226–9.Google Scholar

127 Commission on Wartime Relocation and Internment of Civilians, Personal Justice Denied (Washington: Government Printing Office, 1982), at 8.Google Scholar

128 Saito, N., ‘Justice Held Hostage: US Disregard for International Law in the World War II Internment of Japanese Peruvians—A Case Study’, 40 Boston College Law Review 275, at 320–1.Google Scholar

129 Gardiner, Harvey, ‘The Latin-American Japanese and World War II’, Japanese Americans, op cit, 142.Google Scholar

130 Ibid.

131 Ibid, at 143.

132 Ibid.

133 Ibid.

134 Ibid, at 144; Saito, op cit, at 287.

135 Gardiner, op cit, at 144; Saito, op cit, at 292–7.Google Scholar

136 Ibid, at 294.

137 Gardiner, op cit, 144.Google Scholar

138 Ibid, at 145.

139 Saito, op cit, at 276.Google Scholar

140 Hirabayashi v United States 828 F 2d 591 (9th Cir, 1987), at 595.Google Scholar

141 Hirabayashi v United States 320 US 81 (1943).Google Scholar

142 At 105.Google Scholar

143 Ball, , ‘Judicial Parsimony and Military Necessity Disinterred: A Re-examination of the Japanese Exclusion Cases, 1943–1944’, Japanese Americans, at 176–9.Google Scholar

144 At 108.Google Scholar

145 Yasui v United States 320 US 115 (1943).Google Scholar

146 Korematsu v United States 323 US 214 (1944)Google Scholar

147 At 223.Google Scholar

148 At 242.Google Scholar

149 Exp Mitsuye Endo 323 US 283 (1944).Google Scholar

150 Korematsu v United States 584 F Supp 1406 (1984).Google Scholar

151 Hirabayashi v United States 828 F 2d 591 (9th Cir 1987).Google Scholar

152 Mochizuki v United States 41 Fed Cl 54 (1998); 4 3 Fed Cl 97 (1999).Google Scholar

153 In All the Laws But One: Civil Liberties in Wartime (Knopf, 1998), Chief Justice Rehnquist excuses but does not seek to support this decision.Google Scholar

154 I would broadly agree with the judgment of ProfessorSimpson, in ‘Detention without Trial in the Second World War: Comparing the British and American Experiences’ 16 Florida State Univ Law Rev (1988) 225, at 249–50, 265–7.Google Scholar

155 R v Secretary of State for the Home Department Ex p Pierson [1998] AC 539; R v Secretary of State for the Home Department Ex p Simms [2000] 2 AC 115.Google Scholar

156 Korematsu v United States 584 F Supp 1406 (1984), at 1420.Google Scholar