11 APRIL 1941, Page 13

THE NEW LETTRE DE CACHET Sm, — In your issue of March

28th Commander Geoffrey Bowles's ktter, under the heading "The New Lettre de Cachet," criticised the Isle of Man (Detention) Bill, which is to reverse the vital provisions of the Habeas Corpus Act of 1679 by authorising the Executive to transport unconvicted British subjects out of the jurisdiction of the English and Scottish courts. In your last issue, under the same heading, Mr. H. P. Garwood's letter avers that "the normal processes of the courts" are insufficient protection against Fifth-columnists, &c., and defends the "locking up of all those against whom there is even the least suspicion." It does not reply to Commander Bowles's objection to the transportation of unconvicted subjects into what must amount to outlawry.

I have not heard of any argument for the retention in full of the "normal processes of the courts" where suspected traitors or enemy- agents are concerned. All are agreed that the Executive must be empowered to act promptly in apprehending such persons. The granting of special powers, however, calls for some safeguards against injustice to loyal British subjects. The issue raised by Commander Bowles is, clearly, whether the Executive, particularly the unidentifiable denizens of the Home Office, should be encouraged to break, or evade, the law.

The original Defence Regulation r8B authorised detentions of sus- pected persons for an unlimited period by order of the Secretary of State "if satisfied . . . that it is necessary so to do." This Regulation was repudiated by Parliament. The revised Regulation, now in force, states that "if the Secretary of State has reasonable cause to believe any person to be of hostile origin or associations or to have been recently concerned in acts prejudicial to the public safety or the defence of the realm or in the preparation or instigation of such acts and that by reason thereof it is necessary to exercise control oVer him, he may make an order . . . that he be detained" (my italics). The Secretary of State, in the first place, must have reasonable cause to beheve certain specified facts concerning the person secondly, he must have reasonable cause to believe that those facts make detention tecessarY. The Advisory Committee set up by the Regulation does 13u1 merit discussion. It is in no way a judicial tribunal, and it is admitted that its advice has been arbitrarily rejected by the Home Secretary in fifty-five cases, for reasons unknown. As the reasonableness of the Home Secretary is not infallible, it is claimed that the Regulation does not debar its being called into ques- tion in the courts by means of the habeas corpus process ; but, as this claim is now sub judice, I can say no more. It is certain, however, tint a detained person who lacks considerable means cannot initiate habeas corpus proceedings in London if he is detained in the Isle of 14ao. It is remarkable, also, that the Bill under discussion was intro- duced while habeas corpus and other legal proceedings were pending, aild that a Government spokesman, during discussion of the Bill, said: It is a constitutional issue about which the Attorney-General has 50 very clear or definite views," the Attorney-General being one of the three sponsors of the Bill. If Mr. Garwood would re-read his letter in the light of the above comments he would see that he is, no doubt unintentionally, arguing, Se 5t' that the King's Judges are not to be trusted, and, secondly, that nameless bureaucrats should be free to break the law instead of tiating, if need be, a further revision of Defence Regulation i8B.— iour obedient servant,

ERS.