Unit 1 cases

Question 1

Corkery v Carpenter [1951]

Answer 1

Case where the word ‘carriage’ was interpreted differently, a bike was considered a carriage for the purposes of the act. Shows that the meaning of a particular word can be crucial to the end result.

Question 2

Sussex Peerage Case (1844)

Answer 2

Basis of the literal rule. ‘If the words of the statute are in themselves precise and unambiguous, then no more can be necessary than to expound those words in that natural and ordinary sense. The words themselves alone do, in such a case, best declare the intention of the law giver.’

Question 3

Whiteley v Chappell (1868)

Answer 3

Shows problem with the literal rule. Case in which a man pretended to be someone who was on the voters’ list but who had died. Was not found guilty of impersonating ‘a person entitled to vote’, because literally the person he impersonated was dead and therefore was not ‘a person entitled to vote’.

Question 4

Pepper v Hart [1993]

Answer 4

Courts can refer to Hansard if:
(a) the statute is ambiguous or obscure, or its literal meaning leads to an absurdity; and
(b) the material consists of clear statements by a Minister or other promoter of the Bill.

Question 5

Child standard test

Answer 5

Mullin v Richards