Crown Prosecution Service, Regina (on the Application of) v Bow Street Magistrates Court and others: Admn 18 Jul 2006

The defendants were said to have been found in possession of false passports. They successfully argued that the offence charged under the 1981 Act had been repealed by the 2006 Act. The prosecutor argued that a Schedule only came into effect when explicitly made to come into effect.
Held: The prosecutor’s appeal succeeded. The 2006 Act came into effect when stated, but the court accepted the argument that ‘it is clear from the form and terms of the ICA 2006 that the repeals effectuated by it are repeals consequential upon the bringing into force of the relevant new provisions. To that end, the repeal Schedule 2 needs to be brought into force simultaneously with the new superseding provisions and sections 44(2) and 44(3) should be so construed. ‘ This interpretation was permissible since it imposed no additional burden or relief on the defendants.
May LJ, Forbes J
[2006] EWHC 1763 (Admin), [2007] 1 WLR 291, [2006] 4 All ER 1342
Forgery and Counterfeiting Act 1981 5, Magistrates’ Courts Act 1980 6(1), Interpretation Act 1978 4, Identity Cards Act 2006 44(2)
England and Wales
CitedInco Europe Ltd and Others v First Choice Distributors (A Firm) and Others HL 10-Mar-2000
Although the plain words of the Act would not allow an appeal to the Court of Appeal under the circumstances presently applying, it was clear that the parliamentary draftsman had failed to achieve what he had wanted to, that the omission was in . .

Cited by:
CitedCrown Prosecution Service v Inegbu Admn 26-Nov-2008
The CPS appealed aganst a decision on a charge under the railway byelaws, that the charge be dismissed, the prosecution not having formally proved in accordance with any applicable statutory provision. The byelaws had in fact been properly . .

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 30 January 2021; Ref: scu.243314