Liversidge v Anderson [1942] AC 206 is a landmark United Kingdom administrative law case which concerned the relationship between the courts and the state, and in particular the assistance that the judiciary should give to the executive in times of national emergency.

Sir John Anderson exercised this power in respect of a man called Jack Perlzweig, who used the name Robert Liversidge, committing him to prison but giving no reason.

Viscount Maugham said that the court should "prefer a construction which will carry into effect the plain intention of those responsible" and Lord Macmillan that "it is right so to interpret emergency legislation as to promote rather than to defeat its efficacy".

According to him, if the Secretary had acted in good faith, he need not disclose the basis for his decision, nor were his actions justiciable in a court of law.

Atkin protested that theirs was "a strained construction put on words with the effect of giving an uncontrolled power of imprisonment to the minister," and went on to say: In England, amidst the clash of arms, the laws are not silent.

I have an opinion that they cannot and the case should be decided accordingly.Lord Atkin's view was that the phrase "reasonable cause" in the statute at hand indicated that the actions of the Secretary of State were meant to be evaluated by an objective standard.

In Nakkuda Ali v Jayaratne[9] a strong Privy Council held that Liversidge v. Anderson must not be taken to lay down any general rule on the construction of the expression "has reasonable cause to believe".

However, in the 1977 deportation case of R v. Secretary of State ex parte Hosenball,[13] Lord Denning MR, in the Court of Appeal, supported judicial non-interference with ministerial discretion in matters of national security.

[clarification needed] In R v Storrey, Cory J. wrote a unanimous Supreme Court of Canada verdict that outlined the peacetime conduct of arrest by Canadian police officers.

In India, the Liversidge decision was cited in Gopalan v. State of Madras, where the court held that the subjective test was to be applied.

[18] In Malaysia, the case which established the subjective test of reasonableness for executive actions was Karam Singh v. Menteri Hal Ehwal Dalam Negeri.

The court held that the detention was good, because it could not assess the actions of the executive, applying the subjective test of reasonableness as Liversidge had.

[22] In Attorney-General of St. Christopher, Nevis and Anguilla v Reynolds, decided in 1979, the Privy Council referred to Lord Atkin's "celebrated dissenting speech" in Liversidge and Lord Reid's later description of the majority's conclusion as a "very peculiar decision",[23] but found it unnecessary to express a concluded view on the relative merits of the majority reasons and the dissent.

[24] The Privy Council did refer to a part of Lord Atkin's reasoning that "supports the argument that the words 'the Secretary of State is satisfied, etc.'