The results of one action can change the world. The Stewart v Somerset led to many things such as the anti-slavery movement. The case occurred in England during the colonial era and had a significant impact on the development of human rights and English jurisprudence. The case revolved around the predicament of James Somerset, a slave whose master had brought him to England but who, upon arriving, sought emancipation, so provoking a more comprehensive investigation of the system of slavery. This legal dispute took place in England. Stewart v Somerset illustrates how societal values and legal frameworks are evolving in England. While expanding its empire, England struggled with slavery and human rights as it became the dominant colonial power. …show more content…
In this case, England's dedication to individual freedom, fairness, and the rule of law rendered it justifiable. Somerset's freedom was upheld, and his servitude was ruled illegal in accordance with England's legal heritage of defending individual rights against arbitrary …show more content…
There was much control over legal matters in England since it was the most centralized colonial power. Compared to colonial American courts, which often acted in the interests of plantation owners and local elites, the English judiciary was more independent and autonomous, even if it was still subject to a great deal of political influence. Despite Stewart v. Somerset representing a crucial step towards the abolition of slavery in England, similar challenges were much less likely to occur in colonial America. Due to a variety of factors, including firmly established economic interests, a lack of precedent to challenge slavery, and varying societal attitudes regarding labor and race, the legal environments of colonial America and England differed during the colonial era. The theory of precedent and habeas corpus are two essential legal concepts that are pertinent to this case. A central theme of Somerset's legal battle was habeas corpus, which protects the ability to challenge unjust detention. Somerset's attorneys argued that his captivity amounted to an unlawful deprivation of liberty. Simultaneously, the law of precedent guaranteed that the court's decision set a legal precedent for later cases involving slavery, establishing a foundation for contesting the legitimacy of enslavement in subsequent