However, the subject is
is not
free from authority. The
question was considered under the previous legislation which for
this purpose is not materially different in R. v.
v. Governor of
Pentonville Prison, ex p. Tarling [1979] 1 W.L.R. 1417. In that
case Gibson J. gave the judgment of the court which was presided
over by Lord Widgery C.J. and of which Griffiths J. was the third
member. The court rejected the argument that the issuing of the
warrant ordering the return concluded the power of the court to
order discharge under the Act of 1967. At p. 1425, B-E, Gibson
J. said:
"The Act of 1967 contains no express provision which makes
the issuing of the warrant by the Secretary of State final
and conclusive in the sense contended for, and we can see
nothing in the Act which by necessary implication could
require that such finality be attributed to the issuing of
the warrant.
The principles of law discussed above, including the
duty of any applicant to put forward his full case
on his
initial application, will ensure that it would be only in
33