This HTML5 document contains 65 embedded RDF statements represented using HTML+Microdata notation.

The embedded RDF content will be recognized by any processor of HTML5 Microdata.

Namespace Prefixes

PrefixIRI
dctermshttp://purl.org/dc/terms/
yago-reshttp://yago-knowledge.org/resource/
dbohttp://dbpedia.org/ontology/
n19https://repository.law.umich.edu/mlr/vol64/iss3/
foafhttp://xmlns.com/foaf/0.1/
n18https://global.dbpedia.org/id/
yagohttp://dbpedia.org/class/yago/
dbthttp://dbpedia.org/resource/Template:
rdfshttp://www.w3.org/2000/01/rdf-schema#
freebasehttp://rdf.freebase.com/ns/
rdfhttp://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#
owlhttp://www.w3.org/2002/07/owl#
n7http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/Geo3/56/
n11https://archive.org/details/
wikipedia-enhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/
dbphttp://dbpedia.org/property/
provhttp://www.w3.org/ns/prov#
dbchttp://dbpedia.org/resource/Category:
xsdhhttp://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema#
goldhttp://purl.org/linguistics/gold/
wikidatahttp://www.wikidata.org/entity/
dbrhttp://dbpedia.org/resource/

Statements

Subject Item
dbr:Habeas_Corpus_Act_1816
rdf:type
yago:WrittenCommunication106349220 yago:Law108441203 yago:CivilLaw108453464 yago:WikicatUnitedKingdomActsOfParliament1816 yago:Writing106362953 dbo:Band yago:Legislation106535222 yago:Group100031264 yago:Act106532095 yago:Communication100033020 yago:LegalDocument106479665 yago:Collection107951464 yago:Document106470073 yago:Abstraction100002137
rdfs:label
Habeas Corpus Act 1816
rdfs:comment
The Habeas Corpus Act 1816 (c.100 56 Geo 3) was an Act of the Parliament of the United Kingdom that modified the law on habeas corpus to remove the rule against controverting the return in non-criminal cases.
dcterms:subject
dbc:United_Kingdom_Acts_of_Parliament_1816 dbc:History_of_the_Constitution_of_the_United_Kingdom dbc:Habeas_corpus dbc:1816_in_law
dbo:wikiPageID
43030290
dbo:wikiPageRevisionID
1082974225
dbo:wikiPageWikiLink
dbr:Habeas_corpus dbr:Singapore dbr:House_of_Lords dbc:United_Kingdom_Acts_of_Parliament_1816 dbr:New_Zealand dbr:Opinion_on_the_Writ_of_Habeas_Corpus dbc:History_of_the_Constitution_of_the_United_Kingdom dbr:Australia dbr:John_Eardley_Wilmot dbr:Acts_of_Parliament_in_the_United_Kingdom dbc:1816_in_law dbr:Parliament_of_the_United_Kingdom dbc:Habeas_corpus dbr:United_States dbr:University_of_Virginia
dbo:wikiPageExternalLink
n7:100 n11:habeascorpusfrom00hall n19:4 n11:notesopinionsan00eardgoog
owl:sameAs
freebase:m.010w90lc wikidata:Q18347895 n18:n5c2 yago-res:Habeas_Corpus_Act_1816
dbp:statuteBookChapter
1816
dbp:wikiPageUsesTemplate
dbt:Cite_journal dbt:Cite_book dbt:Reflist dbt:Infobox_UK_legislation dbt:Use_dmy_dates dbt:Sfn
dbp:territorialExtent
United Kingdom
dbp:longTitle
An Act for more effectually securing the Liberty of the Subject.
dbp:parliament
Parliament of the United Kingdom
dbp:shortTitle
Habeas Corpus Act 1816
dbp:status
In force
dbo:abstract
The Habeas Corpus Act 1816 (c.100 56 Geo 3) was an Act of the Parliament of the United Kingdom that modified the law on habeas corpus to remove the rule against controverting the return in non-criminal cases. Historically, the rules around factual inquiries in decisions around petitions for habeas corpus had been based on the , a House of Lords disquisition by Wilmot CJ in 1758, which effectively nullified a bill for passage of An Act for giving a more speedy Remedy to the Subject upon the Writ of Habeas Corpus. It made the argument that the writ allowed the judge only to ask for an explanation of why the prisoner was jailed known as the 'return'), not to debate whether that explanation was justified or to examine the facts of it ('controvert' it), which was the role of the jury. There were several ways around that. One was "confessing and avoiding", introducing and discussing contradicting the facts reported by the jailer, but simply invalidating them. A second method was "proceeding by rule and motion"; by making a ruling that was independent of the return, the judges did not technically argue with the return or contradict it, but the same outcome was reached as if they had done so. That caused some concern because of feelings that it restricted the ability of the courts to deal with arguments over facts from the applicant for the writ. A bill was introduced in 1758 to resolve that but was rejected; a second bill was introduced in 1816 and passed, coming into law as the Habeas Corpus Act 1816. It explicitly allows judges to question and debate the facts laid out in a return, but it deliberately does not extend to criminal cases for fear that it could lead to a full trial being conducted just on the petition and return. It, however, seemingly applies if the petitioner or subject has been arrested for a criminal matter but not charged. Judith Farbey, a barrister and commentator on the law of habeas corpus, argues that the law is pointless; almost anything that could be justified under the 1816 Act could also be justified by classifying the fact that the judge wants to discuss as a "jurisdictional fact", another way of permitting debate. Paul D. Halliday, a professor of history at the University of Virginia agreed, arguing that "all these usages had been available at common law, and there is reason to question the status this act has traditionally received". The end result, though, was that "the rule against controverting the return may safely be regarded as a harmless relic of the past". Outside United Kingdom, legislation in various British territories and dominions ensured that it was enshrined in much Commonwealth law, including that of Singapore, Australia and New Zealand. Outside tho jurisdictions in which it had a direct effect, it was still influential and was "soon duplicated in most American states".
dbp:commencement
1816-07-01
dbp:originalText
n7:100
dbp:royalAssent
1816-07-01
gold:hypernym
dbr:Act
prov:wasDerivedFrom
wikipedia-en:Habeas_Corpus_Act_1816?oldid=1082974225&ns=0
dbo:wikiPageLength
5584
foaf:isPrimaryTopicOf
wikipedia-en:Habeas_Corpus_Act_1816