Cases

Question 0

Whitely v. Chappell

Answer 0

• offence to “impersonate any person entitled to vote”
• used dead man’s vote
• dead person not entitled to vote
• not guilty
• literal rule

Question 1

DPP v. Cheese man

Answer 1

• flashed people coming out of public toilets - people complained
• against law to indecently expose yourself to “passangers”
• police stationed outside the toilets were not passangers
• not guilty
• literal rule

Question 2

London and North Eastern railway co. V. Berriman

Answer 2

• man died on railway oiling tracks
• widow entitled to compensation if “relaying or repairing”
• oiling was only maintenance
• therefore not entitled
• literal rule

Question 3

R v. Allen

Answer 3

• man guilty of bigamy - marrying twice
• Offences Against the Persons Act = illegal
• Allen argued 2nd marriage wasn’t legal as he was already married
• court said ‘marry’ has 2 meanings: marry legally AND go through ceremony
• guilty
• Otherwise no one guilty of bigamy
• golden rule - applied narrowly

Question 4

Re. Sigsworth

Answer 4

-man killed mother to get her money
-law= son of dead women entitled to her money
Literal rule = he’d profit from his crime
-did not apply - did not get money
-golden rule - applied widely

Question 5

Corkery v. Carpenter

Answer 5

• man drunk on a bicycle
• law = illegal to be i intoxicated whilst in charge of a “carriage”
• argued bicycle technically not a “carriage”
• law trying to prevent ‘mischief’ of drunk driving
• guilty
• mischief rule

Question 6

Electoral Commission v. Westminster magistrates

Answer 6

• UKIP accepted donations from someone not on electoral register but could have been
• law = UK political parties couldn’t accept donations from people not on electoral register - prevent influences on UK politics
• had to pay some back
• not guilty
• mischief rule

Question 7

Coltman v. Diddy Tankers

Answer 7

• the Employers liability (Defective Equipment) Act 1969 - employers are liable for damages if employee injured using faulty “equipment” provided by employer
• employee killed working on ship
• HL decided purpose of legislation was to protect employees during work
• therefore “equipment” included place of work
• employee liable for death - Guilty
• purposive approach

Question 8

Jones v. Tower Boot Company

Answer 8

• Race Relations Act 1976 - “anything done by a person in the course of employment shall be treated… As done by his employer”
• “in the course of employment” = what employees are contracted to do for their jobs
• in literal sense employer not guilty - didn’t hire men to racially abuse Jones
• purposive approach
• racism at work was fault of employer - employer responsible for welfare of employees
• Guilty