HABEAS CORPUS (Hansard, 15 July 1980)

§ Mr. Frank Dobson (Holborn and St. Pancras, South)

I beg to move, That leave be given to bring in a Bill for the better securing of individual liberty. The object of my suggested Bill would be achieved by strengthening the protection given by the law of habeas corpus. There are those who would think that this is a matter best left to lawyers, but, just as it is said that war is too important to be left to generals, so I believe that the law on the liberties of the individual is too important to be left to lawyers. The law on habeas corpus provides that anyone who is detained by anyone can ask the Divisional Court to order the authority detaining him to bring him before the court and to give reasons for his detention. This has been regarded as a cornerstone of our individual liberty, but it has been severely eroded in recent years.

First, in the case of police detention of suspects, the Divisional Court has got into the habit of adjourning the hearing to give the police more time in which to respond. As a result, people have been kept in police custody, without there being any lawful right to hold them, for five days or more.

Secondly, in the case of the immigration service detaining alleged illegal immigrants, the courts have got into the habit of not exercising their power to go into the facts when there is a dispute between the individual detainee and the immigration service. Also, on those occasions when the courts have decided to go into the facts, they have ruled that the prisoner in question must prove that the immigration service is wrong, rather 1253 than the other way around. As we know, that is the reversal of the normal presumption of innocence in English law.

My Bill proposes three things. First, provided the police or the other detaining authorities are given reasonable notice, the court cannot adjourn the hearing except with the leave of the individual concerned. Secondly, if there is any dispute over the facts, the courts will be obliged to inquire into that dispute and determine it. Thirdly, my Bill seeks to put the burden of proof on the detaining authorities rather than the prisoner. I hope that these proposals will commend themselves to the House and that the House will take as its example the proceedings which led to the passage of the original Habeas Corpus Act 1679, which went through the House without a single Division.