## Facts

- Thomas Bonham, a Cambridge-educated physician, practiced medicine in London.
- The President, Censors, and College of Physicians of London had statutory and charter authority to regulate medical practice in London, including examining, licensing, and imposing penalties on unlicensed practitioners.
- Bonham sought a license, was examined, and was refused; he continued practicing without the College’s license.
- The College fined Bonham and ordered him to stop; he persisted and denied the College’s authority over university graduates.
- The College’s officials caused Bonham to be arrested and imprisoned for several days for practicing without a license.
- Bonham sued in trespass and false imprisonment; the College defended on the ground that its charter and statute authorized the fine and imprisonment.

## Issues

1. Whether the College’s charter and statute authorized it to imprison Bonham for practicing without a license.
2. Whether a statutory scheme allowing the College to act as both adjudicator and financially interested party (through fines) was consistent with common-law limits on adjudication.
3. Whether, and in what circumstances, common-law courts may refuse effect to statutory provisions that are contrary to “common right and reason,” repugnant, or impossible to perform.

## Decision

- Judgment for Bonham; the imprisonment was unlawful.
- The court construed the governing enactments as not authorizing imprisonment for mere unlicensed practice, distinguishing imprisonment for misconduct/malpractice from lesser regulatory penalties.
- The court reasoned that adjudication by a body that benefits from the penalties it imposes conflicts with the rule that no one may be judge in his own cause.
- The court stated that fines exacted under public regulatory authority were not private revenue of the College.
- In a widely cited passage, the court asserted that, in extreme cases, the common law may “control” an Act of Parliament where it is against common right and reason, repugnant, or impossible to be performed.

## Legal Principles

- Grants of authority to imprison are construed narrowly, particularly where personal liberty is at stake.
- Unlicensed practice, without more, may be treated differently from malpractice or misconduct for purposes of punitive confinement, depending on the statutory text.
- *Nemo judex in causa sua*: a decisionmaker may not adjudicate a case in which it is a party or has a direct financial interest.
- Statutory penalties imposed through a public regulatory scheme are treated as public exactions rather than private income for the enforcing body, absent clear authorization.
- Dictum associated with the case: courts may refuse to enforce legislation in rare circumstances where it is contrary to fundamental common-law reason or is logically incoherent (a proposition later disputed in subsequent English constitutional theory).

## Conclusion

The court held that the College of Physicians exceeded its lawful powers by imprisoning Bonham for unlicensed practice and emphasized common-law limits on self-interested adjudication; the case is chiefly remembered for Coke’s contested dictum suggesting that courts may treat statutes as void when they are against common right and reason or otherwise irreconcilable with law.


Dr. Bonham's Case, 8 Co. Rep. 107a, 77 Eng. Rep. 638 (C.P. 1610)