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"?

Question

“The question can also be considered from another point of view. Supposing the police send a report viz. a charge-sheet, under Section 170 of the Code. As we have already pointed out, the Magistrate is not bound to accept that report, when he considers the matter judicially. But can he differ from the police and call upon them to submit a final report, under Section 169? In our opinion, the Magistrate has no such power. If he has no such power, in law, it also follows that the Magistrate has no power to direct the police to submit a charge-sheet, when the police have submitted a final report that no case is made out for sending the accused for trial. The functions of the Magistracy and the police, are entirely different, and though, in the circumstances mentioned earlier, the Magistrate may or may not accept the report, and take suitable action, according to law, he cannot certainly infringe upon the jurisdiction of the police, by compelling them to change their opinion, so as to accord with his view. Therefore, to conclude, there is no power, expressly or impliedly conferred, under the Code, on a Magistrate to call upon the police to submit a charge-sheet, when they have sent a report under Section 169 of the Code, that there is no case made out for sending up an accused for trial.”
[Extracted from Abhinandan Jha v. Dinesh Mishra, (1967) 3 SCR 668, para 19-20].

Answer 1

Each of the four cases belongs to a distinct, well-known area of public law, so the question can be answered by matching subject matter to the specific dictum quoted rather than by simply recalling one fact in isolation.

Ng Yuen Shiu: known for legitimate expectation, a promise-based fairness doctrine, not for any habeas corpus statement.
Bugdaycay: known for the anxious scrutiny standard in reviewing Home Office decisions affecting life or liberty, but the case itself is a judicial review case, not a habeas corpus application.
Trethowan: known for the manner and form doctrine governing how an entrenched constitutional provision can be validly changed, a subject entirely removed from detention or personal liberty.
Greene: arose from a wartime habeas corpus challenge to detention under Defence Regulation 18B, and it is here that Lord Wright spoke of the writ's incalculable value in allowing the court to fix a detained person's freedom at once.

Since the quoted words belong to a habeas corpus judgment, and only Greene is a habeas corpus case among the four, the case being referred to is Greene v. Secretary of State for Home Affairs (1942) AC 284.

Answer 2

A useful way to answer this is to set Greene directly against its closest rival, Bugdaycay, since both cases involve the Home Secretary's power over a detained or threatened individual, before disposing of the two clearly unrelated options.

Greene v. Secretary of State for Home Affairs (1942) AC 284: This was itself a habeas corpus application testing the legality of wartime detention. Lord Wright's remark about the writ's value in giving an immediate ruling on freedom belongs to this judgment, because the entire case turned on how quickly and effectively the writ could test the detention's legality.
Bugdaycay v. Secretary of State for the Home Department (1987) AC 514: Although this case also concerns the Home Secretary's power over a person facing removal, it was decided through ordinary judicial review, not habeas corpus, and its lasting contribution is the anxious scrutiny standard of review, a different concept from the speed and value of the habeas corpus writ.
Attorney General for Hong Kong v. Ng Yuen Shiu (1983) 2 AC 629: This case has no connection to detention at all; it settled the principle that a public body must honour a specific procedural promise it has made, which is the doctrine of legitimate expectation.
Attorney General for New South Wales v. Trethowan (1932) AC 526: This case is confined to constitutional method, namely whether a legislature can bind its own manner of future law-making, and bears no relation to personal liberty or habeas corpus.

Once Bugdaycay is separated from Greene on the ground of habeas corpus versus ordinary judicial review, and the other two options are excluded as belonging to unrelated doctrines, Greene remains the only case matching the quotation.

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

Answer 3

A useful way to answer this is to set Greene directly against its closest rival, Bugdaycay, since both cases involve the Home Secretary's power over a detained or threatened individual, before disposing of the two clearly unrelated options.

Greene v. Secretary of State for Home Affairs (1942) AC 284: This was itself a habeas corpus application testing the legality of wartime detention. Lord Wright's remark about the writ's value in giving an immediate ruling on freedom belongs to this judgment, because the entire case turned on how quickly and effectively the writ could test the detention's legality.
Bugdaycay v. Secretary of State for the Home Department (1987) AC 514: Although this case also concerns the Home Secretary's power over a person facing removal, it was decided through ordinary judicial review, not habeas corpus, and its lasting contribution is the anxious scrutiny standard of review, a different concept from the speed and value of the habeas corpus writ.
Attorney General for Hong Kong v. Ng Yuen Shiu (1983) 2 AC 629: This case has no connection to detention at all; it settled the principle that a public body must honour a specific procedural promise it has made, which is the doctrine of legitimate expectation.
Attorney General for New South Wales v. Trethowan (1932) AC 526: This case is confined to constitutional method, namely whether a legislature can bind its own manner of future law-making, and bears no relation to personal liberty or habeas corpus.

Once Bugdaycay is separated from Greene on the ground of habeas corpus versus ordinary judicial review, and the other two options are excluded as belonging to unrelated doctrines, Greene remains the only case matching the quotation.

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

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"?

Show Hint

The Correct Option is C

Approach Solution - 1

Approach Solution -2

Top Questions on Administrative Law

Questions Asked in AIBE exam