Scribd
Upload
72 views2 pages

Abduction

Jupiter Hestia, a Hokian officer, was reported missing in London in 2010. She was suspected to have been abducted by persons with links to the Hallbachian Army. Hallbach denied this suspicion. Under the legal principle of Mala Captus, Bene Detentus, a court can try an individual who was brought before it by irregular means, which supported Hestia's trial in a special court. Both US and English courts have upheld this doctrine. In Ker v. Illinois, the US Supreme Court held that how a defendant is brought into custody does not violate the US Constitution or laws. In Frisbie v. Collins, the Court reaffirmed that due process is satisfied

Uploaded by

Harshit Gupta
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
72 views2 pages

Abduction

Jupiter Hestia, a Hokian officer, was reported missing in London in 2010. She was suspected to have been abducted by persons with links to the Hallbachian Army. Hallbach denied this suspicion. Under the legal principle of Mala Captus, Bene Detentus, a court can try an individual who was brought before it by irregular means, which supported Hestia's trial in a special court. Both US and English courts have upheld this doctrine. In Ker v. Illinois, the US Supreme Court held that how a defendant is brought into custody does not violate the US Constitution or laws. In Frisbie v. Collins, the Court reaffirmed that due process is satisfied

Uploaded by

Harshit Gupta
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 2

ABDUCTION

Hokian officer Jupiter Hestia on 29 May 2010, was reported missing in London, while she was
visiting the British Museum, It was suspected that persons of Hallbachian origin, with possible
links to the Hallbachain Army, had abducted her. But this suspect ion was denied by hallbach, and
even if this suspect ion was somewhat true then also her trail in front of special court was not
invalid as it was supported under the roman law principle of Mala Captus,Bene Detentus states
can try individual in front of their courts even though the accused were brought there by irregular
means.

The US Supreme Court in Ker V. Illinois65 held that where the prisoner has been kidnapped in
the foreign country and brought by force against his will within the jurisdiction of the state whose
law he has violated this court can give no relief, for these facts do not establish any right under the
constitution, or laws of united states.

Furthermore, court did not consider that there was violation of the due process of law which is
protected under the U.S. Constitution; because “mere irregularities in the manner in which [the
defendant] may be brought into custody of the law” do not prevent indictment.

In the case of Frisbie v. Collins67 U.S. Court came to this conclusion that “This Court has never
departed from the rule announced in [Ker] that the power of a court to try a person for crime is not
impaired by the fact that he had been brought within the court’s jurisdiction by reason of a ‘forcible
abduction.’ No persuasive reasons are now presented to justify overruling this line of cases.
They rest on the sound basis that due process of law is satisfied when one present in court is
convicted of crime after having been fairly apprized of the charges against him and after a
fair trial in accordance with constitutional procedural safeguards. There is nothing in the
Constitution that requires a court to permit a guilty person rightfully convicted to escape
justice because he was brought to trial against his will.”

It was further heighted in the case of UNITED STATES v.ALVAREZ-MACHAIN, where court
used the ker frisbie doctrine and held that “the fact of respondent’s forcible abduction does not
prohibit his trial in a United States court for violations of this country’s criminal laws.”

In english courts also this doctrine is accepted were in the case of Ex parte Elliot the Court opined
that:-
“Once a prisoner is in lawful custody in this country, of the circumstances in which he may have
been brought here... are no concern to this court. Therefore, if a person charged with a crime is
found in this country, it is the duty of the court totake care that such a party shall be amenable to
Justice.”

Thus, if a person is arrested abroad and he is brought before a court in this country charged with
an offence which that court has jurisdiction to hear, then the court cannot dismiss the charge at
once without being heard and it is no answer for him to say that he was arrested contrary to the
law of state as he is in the custody before the court which has jurisdiction to try him.

You might also like

pFad - Phonifier reborn

Pfad - The Proxy pFad of © 2024 Garber Painting. All rights reserved.

Note: This service is not intended for secure transactions such as banking, social media, email, or purchasing. Use at your own risk. We assume no liability whatsoever for broken pages.


Alternative Proxies:

Alternative Proxy

pFad Proxy

pFad v3 Proxy

pFad v4 Proxy