Question

In which of the following cases did Lord Wright observe that "the incalculable value of habeas corpus is that it enables the immediate determination of the applicant's freedom"?

• A. Attorney General for Hong Kong v. Ng Yuen Shiu (1983) 2 AC 629
• B. Bugdaycay v. Secretary of State for the Home Department (1987) AC 514
• C. Greene v. Secretary of State for Home Affairs (1942) AC 284
• D. Attorney General for New South Wales v. Trethowan (1932) AC 526

Hint:

Whenever a question mentions Habeas Corpus, immediately associate it with protection against unlawful detention and preservation of personal liberty.

Answer 1

The Correct Option is C

Concept: The writ of Habeas Corpus is regarded as one of the most important safeguards of personal liberty in constitutional and administrative law. The expression literally means ``produce the body'' and enables a court to examine whether the detention of a person is lawful. The remedy developed in English common law and later became an essential constitutional protection in democratic legal systems.

Step 1: Understanding the significance of Habeas Corpus.
The primary purpose of Habeas Corpus is to provide a speedy judicial remedy against unlawful detention. Whenever an individual's liberty is restrained, the court can immediately inquire into the legality of such detention and order release if the detention is found to be unlawful.

Step 2: Examining Lord Wright's observation.
Lord Wright emphasized the exceptional importance of Habeas Corpus by stating that its ``incalculable value'' lies in enabling the immediate determination of a person's freedom. The statement highlights the urgency attached to cases involving personal liberty and unlawful confinement.

Step 3: Identifying the relevant case.
This famous observation was made by Lord Wright in Greene v. Secretary of State for Home Affairs (1942) AC 284. The case is frequently cited in discussions concerning constitutional remedies and the protection of individual liberty.

Step 4: Legal importance of the decision.
The decision reinforced the principle that liberty occupies a special position in law and that courts must remain vigilant whenever executive action restricts personal freedom. \[ \boxed{\text{The observation was made in Greene v. Secretary of State for Home Affairs (1942).}} \]

Answer 2

This question asks which reported case records Lord Wright's celebrated remark on the incalculable value of habeas corpus in securing an immediate ruling on a detained person's liberty. Each option can be tested by matching its known subject matter against that specific dictum.

1. Attorney General for Hong Kong v. Ng Yuen Shiu (1983) 2 AC 629: This Privy Council decision is the leading authority on the doctrine of legitimate expectation, holding that a public authority which promises a particular procedure must generally follow it. It deals with fairness in administrative promises, not with the scope or urgency of habeas corpus, so it cannot be the source of Lord Wright's statement.
2. Bugdaycay v. Secretary of State for the Home Department (1987) AC 514: This House of Lords case concerns the intensity of judicial review applied to Home Office asylum and deportation decisions, and is remembered for Lord Bridge's anxious scrutiny standard where a person's life or liberty is at stake in an executive decision. It is about the standard of review in judicial review proceedings, not about the specific value of the habeas corpus writ itself, so it does not fit.
3. Greene v. Secretary of State for Home Affairs (1942) AC 284: This case arose from wartime detention under Defence Regulation 18B and directly concerned an application for habeas corpus challenging the legality of that detention. It is in this case that Lord Wright praised the writ precisely because it allows a court to decide, without delay, whether a detained person's confinement is lawful, matching the quotation in the question exactly.
4. Attorney General for New South Wales v. Trethowan (1932) AC 526: This is a constitutional law case about the manner and form requirement for amending or repealing an entrenched provision of a colonial constitution, and has nothing to do with detention, personal liberty, or habeas corpus.

Only Greene v. Secretary of State for Home Affairs concerns a habeas corpus application at all, and it is this case in which Lord Wright's observation about the writ's incalculable value in securing an immediate determination of freedom is recorded.

Therefore, the correct answer is Greene v. Secretary of State for Home Affairs (1942) AC 284.