Crown 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 The byelaws had in fact been properly introduced, but the 2000 Act had been repealed and replaced by the 2005 Act. The certificate provided had been made under the 2000 Act.
Held: The appeal succeeded. Davis J said: ‘If there is here a seeming lacuna in the legislation, plainly not filling Parliament’s intention, I think that in this particular case it can be properly filled by the court by a process of interpretation: and section 46(4) of the 2005 Act in my view is, on its wording, sufficient to convey the continuing applicability of Schedule 20 to byelaws made under the 2000 Act which continue in effect.’
Latham LJ said: ‘the intention of Parliament can be clearly gleaned from the structure of the amended legislation which envisaged that the byelaws would continue in effect, which could only be an effective provision if continued together with the procedural provisions in Schedule 2. It seems to me that there is no need to go, therefore, beyond section 46(4) in order to provide the right answer.’
Latham LJ, Davis J
[2008] EWHC 3242 (Admin), [2009] 1 WLR 2327
Transport Act 2000 219, Railways Act 2005, Interpretation Act 1978 16 17
England and Wales
CitedCrown 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 They successfully argued that the offence charged under the 1981 Act had been repealed by the 2006 Act.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 . .
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 . .
CitedFloor v Davis (Inspector of Taxes) HL 1979
The House considered whether the meaning of the phrase ‘a person having control’ extended to control by more than one person. This depended on whether the word ‘person’ in the singular was to be construed as including the plural.
Held: The . .

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 23 March 2021; Ref: scu.293930