One was "confessing and avoiding", introducing and discussing contradicting the facts reported by the jailer, but simply invalidating them.

[5] That caused some concern because of feelings that it restricted the ability of the courts to deal with arguments over facts from the applicant for the writ.

[7] Paul D. Halliday, a professor of history at the University of Virginia agreed, arguing that "all these usages had been available at common law, and there is reason to question the status this act has traditionally received".

[8] The end result, though, was that "the rule against controverting the return may safely be regarded as a harmless relic of the past".

[7] Outside United Kingdom, legislation in various British territories and dominions ensured that it was enshrined in much Commonwealth law, including that of Singapore,[9] Australia and New Zealand.