What's this habeas corpus that David Blunkett wants to ban

�

A.� An ancient right of liberty. Mr Blunkett, the home secretary, is planning to detain terrorists without trial.� It is an emergency measure that would make Britain safer, but - say its critics - a country where freedoms are being eroded.< xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" />

�

Q.� So what does it mean

A.� Habeas corpus literally means 'you may have his body'. Or: 'Bringing the body of an individual before a court of justice'. It effectively means that you may not be imprisoned without charge or trial.

�

Q.� And from when does this right exist

A.� In England, since early Norman times. Article 36 of the Magna Carta of 1215 says that this right should 'not be refused'. Once before a court, an accused person has his case examined and is then allowed bail - freed on condition that he leaves a sum of money and promises to return for further hearings, or he is imprisoned again (remanded in custody) because the evidence against him is so great.

�

Q.� So when did this fall into misuse

A. �By the troubled reign of Charles I, kings were saying that a simple royal order could overrule a writ of Habeas Corpus. That meant they could take political prisoners.
Charles II was even more than his father prone to this - using various plots as pretexts to bang up political opponents, and have them put to death. So�in the late 17th century Parliament plucked up courage to proscribe his powers, by�clearly�laying down the law on�prisoner' rights.

�

Q.� In an Act

A.� Yes. The Habeas Corpus Act, passed in May 1679, allowed a prisoner to demand that he should be brought before a court and have his case examined. It meant that a political prisoner, as well as a common criminal, could have a fair trial and not just be thrown into prison to be forgotten about. The act was a dramatic contrast to the notorious 'lettres de cachet' of Louis XIV: these allowed the French king to imprison someone indefinitely, without any legal redress.

�

Q.� So David Blunkett's move is the first assault on this freedom since then

A.� Oh no! Liberty and security have long been at war. Habeas Corpus suspension acts, restricting trial rights and widening arrest and detention powers, were introduced in the early 19th Century. The Defence of the Realm Act in the First World War authorised the trial of civilians by courts martial. In 1920, the Emergency Powers Act gave government extensive powers to govern by orders in Council in a state of emergency. This was used in the 1926 General Strike and by the Conservatives to control electricity use during the strikes of the 1970s.

�

Q.� What about the Second World War

A.� Compulsory identity papers were introduced and the Emergency Powers (Defence) Act 1939 again enabled government regulation by order. It permitted people to be detained without trial in the interests of defence or public safety. That included thousands of such as Germans or Italians - as well as members of the British Union of Fascists, who were interned.

�

Q.� But never since

A.� Don't you believe it. Suspected terrorists could be interned without trial in Northern Ireland from 1972. Within hours of the 1974 IRA bombings in Birmingham, the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act was passed. It prohibited support for certain organisations and banned paramilitary dress, among other measures. The Government was given extensive powers, including restricting the movement of people.

�

Q.� And the latest proposals are under fire

A.� Oh yes. Blunkett hit back at 'airy-fairy' liberals who had criticised the anti-terrorist package. But top judge Lord Donaldson, a former Master of the Rolls, replied:� 'This has no precedent. Habeas corpus goes back centuries. This is not an airy-fairy issue, this is a fundamental right without which we are entirely at the mercy of ministers.' Charles II might have been amused.

�

To ask a question about History & Myths, click here

by Steve Cunningham

�