Moreover the Attorney-General was a proper respondent to the motion, by virtue of s 19(2) d of the State Liability and Proceedings Act 1966, since the redress claimed under s 6 was against the state for contravention by its judicial arm of the appellant’s constitutional rights (see p 675 g to p 676 a and p 681 e to g, post).
d Section 19(2) provides: ‘Subject to this Act and to any other enactment, proceedings against the [state] shall be instituted against the Attorney-General’ (ii) The protection afforded by s 1 of the Constitution was, by virtue of the combined effect of ss 1, 2 and 3 of the Constitutio, protection against interference by the state, or some other public authority, with a right or freedom described in s 1 insofar as the interference would have been unlawful under the law in force immediately before the Constitution came into effect.
Before proceeding you must read, understand and agree to the following statements regarding Adult and the material within.
de Freitas (also called Malik) v Benny  AC 239,  3 WLR 388, PC, Digest (Cont Vol D) 111, * 132a.
The appellant was therefore entitled to apply to the High Court for redress under s 6(1) in respect of his imprisonment notwithstanding that he also had a right of appeal against the committal order to the Judicial Committee.
Since the word ‘redress’ in s 6(1) bore its ordinary meaning of reparation or compensation for the wrong sustained, the appellant was entitled to claim damages for the imprisonment.
On the substantive hearing of the motion, a third judge (Scott J) dismissed the motion and ordered the appellant to serve the remaining six days of his sentence, which he served.
He appealed against the decision to the Court of Appeal.
We are free dating website, with most dating members from UK & US looking for speed dating.