Defence Regulation 18B

Defence Regulation 18B was the most famous of the Defence Regulations used by the British Government during World War II. It allowed for the internment of people suspected of being Nazi sympathisers.

Legal process and challenging detention

There were two justifications for an order to intern: "acts prejudicial to the public safety" and "hostile origin or associations".

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

A detainee could challenge their detention by way of an appeal to an Advisory Committee headed by Norman Birkett. The committee would be presented with a statement of the reasons why detention had been proposed, drawn up by MI5, which the detainee was not permitted to see. The Committee could recommend continued detention, release under condition, or unconditional release. The Committee's recommendations went to the Home Secretary, who was not bound to accept them; MI5 often lobbied him not to accept a recommendation to release.

Related Topics:
Norman Birkett - MI5

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Some detainees attempted to take further action through the courts. Challenges were brought on the basis of Habeas corpus, but refused on the ground that the Home Secretary had taken his decision to intern on the basis of reports which must be kept secret; the Court satisfied itself that he had reasonable cause to sign a detention order.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

The most significant case was Liversidge v. Anderson, brought by Robert W. Liversidge who was a successful Jewish businessman and therefore a highly atypical 18B detainee. He brought a civil action for damages for false imprisonment but did not apply for Habeas corpus. The ultimate ruling in his case has since been adjudged to have been wrongly decided. It was that where it is required in law that a Minister "has reasonable cause to believe" something before acting, the Court can only inquire into whether he really did believe it, and not whether the things causing this belief were true. Lord Atkin wrote a celebrated dissent from this judgment.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Archibald Maule Ramsay, as the only MP detained, had the matter referred to the House of Commons Committee on Privileges for a ruling as to whether the detention of an MP was a breach of the Privilege of Parliament. It decided it was not.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~