G152 cases Flashcards
Rules of Interpretation- LITERAL RULE (3)
1) Whiteley v Chappell 1868- “personate any person entitled o vote”, not guilty as dead. Absurd
2) Fischer v Bell 1960- Restriction of Offensive Weapons Act 1959, “offer for sale” v “invite to treat: not guilty.
3) London and NW Railway Co v Berriman 1946 (harsh decision)- oiling (maintaining) killed. Lookout needed in Fatal Accidents Act if “relaying or repairing”. Case failed.
Rules of Interpretation- GOLDEN RULE (3)
1) R v Allen 1872- narrow application. Bigamy, ‘whosoever being married shall not marry another’ means through ceremony. No offence.
2) Alder v George 1964- Official Secrets Act 1920 ‘in the vicinity of’ she was in the prohibited area, so it was read as ‘in or in the vicinity’
3) Re Sigsworth 1935- murdered mum. Admin of Justice Act 1925 would’ve inherited. Wider application and the word ‘issue’ changed.
Rules of Interpretation- MISCHIEF RULE (5)
1) RCN v DHSS
2) Heydons Case 1584 set the rules
3) Gardiner v Sevenoaks- camera film ‘on premises’ stored in a cave. Held cave was mischief intended to prevent
4) Smith v Hughes 1960- 6 different women, not ‘in a street’ attracting men- guilty.
5) Eastbourne BC v Sterling 2000- taxi driver ‘plying for hire in any street’ with no license. Guilty as on private hire land and likely to get customers from street referred to Smith v Hughes 1960.
Rules of Interpretation- PURPOSIVE RULE (3)
1) Quintavalle v Sec of State 2003- CNR organsims ‘embryos or not?. “Live human embryos here fertilisation is complete”. Effect to Parliaments purpose 1990.
2) R v Registrar- General ex parte Smith 1990. South wanted a birth certificate “shall…supply”. 2 murders and detained at Broadmor and psychotic illness- didn’t have to supply.
3) Meah v Roberts 1970- lemonade, caustic soda. “selling food intended for human consumption”, Food and Drugs Act 1955- illegal.
Rules of Language- EJUSDEM GENERIS RULE (3)
1) Powell v Kempton Park Racecourse 1899- did “house, office, room and other places” include outside tattersalls ring? Not guilty as trend was inside.
2) Hobbs v CG Robertson Ltd 1970- Injured eye when removing brickwork and splintered. “stone, concrete, slag and similar material”. Trend was hard materials. Didn’t apply rule
3) Allen v Emmerson 1944- Act applied to theatres and other places of amusement. Held funfairs were covered as rules didn’t apply. Need 2 to make a trend.
Statutory Interpretation- NECESSARY (3)
1) Ambiguous Drafting- Dangerous Dogs Act 1991. “Dogs of the type known as pit bull terrier”.
2) Unforeseen Developments- RCN v DHSS 1981. Abortion Act 1967 said “registered medical practitioner” could only carry out abortions. 1972 changed method so nurses could perform the second half. 3/5 HL said lawful (Mischief).
3) Language Changes- Cheesman v DPP 1990. Wilfully and indecently exposing to ‘passengers’ of the street.As police officers were stationed- not guilty.
4) Conflicting Statutes
