Darnell's Case

While supportive of the conflict, Parliament first demanded an investigation into the conduct of the army commander, the Duke of Buckingham, notorious for inefficiency and extravagance.

[1] The Chief Justice Sir Randolph Crewe ruled this policy was illegal and the judiciary complied only after he was dismissed.

Heath claimed the Royal Prerogative allowed the king to take whatever action he considered necessary "in time of crisis" and thus he had no need to justify the detentions.

[6] Although the judges had refused to release the prisoners, Charles decided not to pursue charges; since his opponents included the previous Chief Justice, and other senior legal officers, the ruling meant the loans would almost certainly be deemed illegal.

The Habeas Corpus Act 1640 restored the right to petition the courts for release against the wishes of the king and his Council, but it was not completely effective[10] and the practice of executive detention without specific cause continued, notably with Lilburne's Case in 1653.