Liversidge v Anderson
A wartime decision that the Home Secretary's belief about detention need not be objectively reasonable, famous for Lord Atkin's powerful dissent.
Facts
During the Second World War, regulation 18B of the Defence (General) Regulations 1939 allowed the Home Secretary to detain any person if he had reasonable cause to believe that person to be of hostile origin or associations. Mr Liversidge was detained under the regulation, and he sued for false imprisonment, asking the Home Secretary to disclose the grounds for his belief.
Legal principle
The House of Lords held, by a majority, that the courts could not inquire into whether the Home Secretary actually had reasonable cause for his belief. It was enough that he honestly believed he had reasonable cause, so his decision was effectively not open to challenge. Lord Atkin dissented, saying that he viewed with apprehension the attitude of judges who, on a mere question of construction, showed themselves more executive minded than the executive, and that in England, amid the clash of arms, the laws are not silent. He said that the words reasonable cause had an objective meaning which the courts could examine. Lord Atkin's dissent is now regarded as correct, and was approved by the House of Lords in R v Inland Revenue Commissioners, ex p Rossminster.
Related cases on rule of law
- Al Rawi v Security Service [2011] UKSC 34, [2012] 1 AC 531
- Burmah Oil Co Ltd v Lord Advocate [1965] AC 75
- Entick v Carrington (1765) 19 St Tr 1029
- M v Home Office [1994] 1 AC 377
- Malone v Metropolitan Police Commissioner [1979] Ch 344
- R (Corner House Research) v Director of the Serious Fraud Office [2008] UKHL 60, [2009] 1 AC 756
- R (Evans) v Attorney General [2015] UKSC 21, [2015] AC 1787
- R (UNISON) v Lord Chancellor [2017] UKSC 51, [2020] AC 869
Studying public law? Our tutors help you understand and apply cases like this in essays, problem questions and exams. Request a quote or browse our law notes.
This summary is for study and revision and is not legal advice. Although our case summaries are checked for accuracy, we do not guarantee that they are free from errors or omissions. Always read the full judgment for the court's reasoning.
