From the History of the Bill of Rights

This bill was a …..to the American Bill of Rights, and set out strict …… on the Royal Family's legal prerogatives such as a prohibition against arbitrary suspension of Parliament's laws. More importantly, it limited the right to ……. money through taxation to Parliament.

William of Orange and his wife Mary were crowned King and Queen of England in Westminster Abbey on April 11, 1689. As part of their oaths, the new King William III and Queen Mary were …… to swear that they would obey the laws of Parliament. At this time, the Bill of Rights was read to both William and Mary. "We thankfully ……… what you have offered us," William replied, agreeing to be …….. to law and to be guided in his actions by the decisions of Parliament.

The Bill was formally …… through Parliament after the coronation. On December 16, 1689, the King and Queen gave it Royal Assent which represented the end of the concept of divine right of kings. The Bill of Rights was ……. to control the power of kings and queens and to make them subject to laws passed by Parliament. This concession by the royal family has been called the "bloodless revolution" or the "glorious revolution." It was certainly an era for a more tolerant royal prerogative.

The Bill of Rights was one of three very important laws made at this time. The other two were the 1689 Toleration Act (which promoted religious …….. ) and the 1694 Triennial Act, which ……… the King from dissolving Parliament at his will and held that general elections had to be held every three years.

TASK 14. Answer the following questions:

1. What historical events preceded the Bill of Rights?

2. What was the main purpose of the Bill of Rights?

3. How was the power of monarch restricted?

4. What kind of civil rights were received by the people?

5. How were the members of Parliament protected by the Bill?

TASK 15. Study the text below, making sure you fully comprehend it. Where appropriate, consult English-Russian dictionaries and/or other reference & source books on law.

Habeas Corpus

Personal liberty is regarded as the most fundamental of all freedoms, and where indi­viduals are wrongfully deprived of their liberty, the fact that, on release, they can sue their captor for damages under the ordinary civil law is not regarded as sufficient.

Habeas corpus is an ancient remedy which allows a person detained to challenge the legality of detention and, if successful, get themselves quickly released. It does not punish the person responsible for the detention, but once the detainee is set free, they can still pursue any other available remedies for compensation or punishment.

Habeas corpus may be sought by, among others, convicted prisoners; those detained in custody pending trial or held by the police during criminal investigations; those awaiting extradition; psychiatric patients; and those with excessive bail conditions imposed on them. Application is made to the Divisional Court, and takes priority over all other court business.

The procedure for the issuing of writs of habeas corpus was first codified by the Habeas Corpus Act 1679. Then, as now, the writ of habeas corpus was issued by a superior court in the name of the Sovereign, and commanded the addressee (a lower court, sheriff, or private subject) to produce the prisoner before the Royal courts of law. A habeas corpus petition could be made by the prisoner himself or by a third party on his behalf and, as a result of the Habeas Corpus Acts, could be made regardless of whether the court was in session, by presenting the petition to a judge.

The right to petition for a writ of habeas corpus has long been celebrated as the most efficient safeguard of the liberty of the subject. Albert Venn Dicey wrote that the Habeas Corpus Acts "declare no principle and define no rights, but they are for practical purposes worth a hundred constitutional articles guaranteeing individual liberty".

Suspension of Habeas Corpus

In most countries, however, the procedure of habeas corpus can be suspended in time of national emergency. For example the US Сonstitution explicitly defines when it can be overridden: "The privilege of the writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in cases of rebellion or invasion the public safety may require it."

On October 17, 2006, President Bush signed a law (Military Commissions Act of 2006) suspending the right of habeas corpus to persons "determined by the United States" to be an "enemy combatant" in the Global War on Terror. It was a response to the Global War on Terrorism, considered to have been triggered by the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks in New York City and the Pentagon. The Act grants the President of the United States almost unlimited authority in establishing and conducting military commissions to try persons held by the U.S., and considered to be "unlawful enemy combatants" in the Global War on Terrorism. In addition, the Act suspends the right of "unlawful enemy combatants" to present, or to have presented in their behalf, writs of habeas corpus.

Criticism of suspending the right of habeas corpus

President Bush's action drew severe criticism, mainly for the law's failure to specifically designate who in the United States will determine who is and who is not an "enemy combatant". Jonathan Turley, professor of constitutional law at George Washington University stated, "What, really, a time of shame this is for the American system. What the Congress did and what the president signed today essentially revokes over 200 years of American principles and values."

In fact, the Military Commissions Act of 2006 was not the first time in the history of the U.S. Constitution that its guaranteed right to writs of habeas corpus has been suspended by an action of the President of the United States. In the early days of the U.S. Civil War President Abraham Lincoln suspended writs of habeas corpus. Both presidents based their action on the dangers of war, and both presidents faced sharp criticism for carrying out what many believed to be an attack on the Constitution.

Situation in Continental Europe

Protection against arbitrary imprisonment by the writ of habeas corpus is not found in continental Europe. In the democratic countries of Western Europe, however, the codes of criminal procedure require that an arrested person be informed with reasonable promptness of the charges and be allowed to seek legal counsel. In many other countries, persons are subjected at times to lengthy periods of imprisonment without being informed of the charges. The writ of habeas corpus has been adopted in many Latin American countries, either by constitutional provision or statutory enactment, but has frequently been nullified in practice during times of political or social upheaval.

TASK 16. Find the appropriate definitions:

Upheaval	to prevent from possessing or enjoying;
sue	to set aside or disregard with superior authority or power
deprive	to hold in abeyance; to postpone an action
override	a document under seal, issued in the name of the Crown or a court, commanding the person to whom it is addressed to do or refrain from doing some specified act
suspend	a strong, sudden, or violent disturbance, as in politics, social conditions, etc
writ	a sum of money by which a person is bound to take responsibility for the appearance in court of another person or himself or herself, forfeited if the person fails to appear
bail	to institute legal proceedings
challenge	a questioning of a statement or fact; a demand for justification or explanation

TASK 17. Answer the following questions:

1. What kind of fundamental human rights is protected by habeas corpus writ?

2. How can habeas corpus protect the rights of a detained person?

3. Who has a right to petition for a writ of habeas corpus?

4. In what situations the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus can be suspended? Give examples from the history.

5. Why did Military Commissions Act of 2006 draw severe criticism? What is your opinion on this matter?

6. What do you know about protection against arbitrary imprisonment in Europe and other countries?

TASK 18. Translate the following text into English:

Хабеас корпус акт— законодательный акт, принятый парламентом Англии в 1679, составная часть конституции Великобритании, определяет правила ареста и привлечения к суду обвиняемого в преступлении. Он предоставляет суду право контролировать законность задержания и ареста граждан.

Согласно этому закону, если обвиняемый считал свой арест незаконным, то судьи были обязаны требовать проверки законности ареста; заключение обвиняемого в тюрьму могло производиться только по предъявлении приказа с указанием причины ареста.

Акт обязывал судей выдавать хабеас корпус во всех случаях, за исключением тех, когда основанием ареста являлось обвинение данного лица в государственной измене или тяжком уголовном преступлении.

По получении предписания хабеас корпус смотритель обязан был в течение 3—20 дней (в зависимости от дальности расстояния) доставить арестованного в суд. В случае задержки судебного расследования закон предусматривал освобождение арестованного под залог (чем не могли воспользоваться малоимущие);

Правительству предоставлялось право приостанавливать действие акта в чрезвычайных случаях, но лишь с согласия обеих палат парламента и не более, чем на один год. Эта мера практиковалась в очень редких случаях, в Англии и Шотландии она не применялась с 1818 года.

TASK 19. Writing

Using the information from the texts explain the meaning of Habeas Corpus as a part of British Constitution

TASK 20. Study the text below, making sure you fully comprehend it. Where appropriate, consult English-Russian dictionaries and/or other reference & source books on law.