▁of ▁the ▁fundamental ▁right ▁to ▁personal ▁freedom ▁is ▁manifest , ▁and ▁the ▁procedures ▁used ▁must ▁in ev it ably ▁possess ▁a ▁summary ▁character ▁if ▁they ▁are ▁to ▁be ▁econom ically ▁worth while ▁to ▁the ▁cred itor , ▁then ▁the ▁very ▁institution ▁of ▁civil ▁imprison ment , ▁however ▁it ▁may ▁be ▁described ▁and ▁however ▁well ▁directed ▁its ▁procedures ▁might ▁be , ▁in ▁itself ▁must ▁be ▁regarded ▁as ▁highly ▁question able ▁and ▁not ▁a ▁comp elling ▁claim ant ▁for ▁surv ival . ▁ ▁The ▁court , ▁accordingly , ▁should ▁not ▁exercise ▁its ▁dis cret ion ▁under ▁section ▁ 9 8 ( 5 ) ▁of ▁the ▁Constitution ▁in ▁favour ▁of ▁keeping ▁the ▁institution ▁of ▁imprison ment ▁in ▁sections ▁ 6 5 A - 6 5 M ▁of ▁the ▁Act ▁alive . ▁Sach s ▁J ▁str essed , ▁however , ▁that ▁this ▁was ▁not ▁to ▁say ▁that ▁there ▁could ▁never ▁be ▁circumstances ▁just ifying ▁the ▁use ▁of ▁the ▁back - up ▁of ▁prison ▁to ▁ensure ▁that ▁court ▁orders ▁for ▁payment ▁of ▁judgment ▁deb ts ▁were ▁obey ed ▁in ▁the ▁same ▁way ▁as ▁other ▁orders . ▁The ▁legisl ature , ▁if ▁it ▁so ▁chose , ▁would ▁be ▁better ▁placed ▁than ▁the ▁Constitution al ▁Court ▁to ▁do ▁the ▁requ is ite ▁research , ▁can v ass ▁opinions ▁and ▁receive ▁information ; ▁it ▁could ▁give ▁full ▁consideration ▁to ▁relevant ▁inter related ▁factors , ▁such ▁as ▁the ▁proper ▁management ▁of ▁deb t ▁collection , ▁the ▁way ▁in ▁which ▁credit ▁was ▁extended , ▁rem ed ies ▁for ▁ens uring ▁ful fil ment