R. v. The Home Secretary, exp. L.

Abstract

Abstract IT is settled that an interned alien enemy, like a prisoner of war, is not entitled to the benefits of habeas corpus: Exp. Weber [1916] I AC 421; Exp. Liebmann [1916] 1 KB 268. On the other hand, a stateless person who is interned is probably entitled to a writ. What, then, are the rights of a person who at the outbreak of war was an alien enemy and who during the war loses his enemy nationality? In R. v. The Home Secretary, exp.L. [1945] I KB 7, Viscount Caldecote LCJ, with whom Humphreys and Wrottesley JJ agreed, said ‘that such changes of nationality are not recognized for very obvious reasons. If such changes were to be permitted in time of war enemy agents might acquire facilities which could be used in a way very much to the prejudice of this country.’ The application for a writ of habeas corpus was therefore refused. In view of the peculiar character of the writ the result is hardly open to doubt (although Reg. 18B would probably have deprived a decision in favour of the applicant of any dangerous consequences) and it was certainly impossible for the Court to be influenced by the fact that in this particular case the application was made not by an alien enemy who had ‘thrown off’ his disability