The court considered how to decide what would be the consequences of failing to comply with a statutory requirement. Lord Campbell CJ said that the court should look at the importance of the provisions in question and to look at the real intention of the legislature in deciding what the consequences of non-compliance were intended to be: ‘No universal rule can be laid down . . It is the duty of courts of justice to try to get at the real intention of the legislature by carefully attending to the whole scope of the statute to be construed.’
Lord Campbell CJ
(1860) 30 LJ Ch 379, (1860) 2 De GFandJ 502,  45 ER 715
England and Wales
Cited – Sekhon, etc v Regina CACD 16-Dec-2002
The defendants appealed against confiscation orders on the basis that in various ways, the Crown had failed to comply with procedural requirements.
Held: The courts must remember the importance of such procedures in the fight against crime, . .
Applied – Regina v Price CACD 6-Nov-1985
The defendant appealed saying that after committal, the trial had proceeded on the basis of a voluntary bill of indictment, and he had been convicted on his own plea. He now appealed saying that the bill had not been signed as required.
Held: . .
Approved – Clarke, Regina v; Regina v McDaid HL 6-Feb-2008
An indictment had not been signed despite a clear statutory provision that it should be. The defects were claimed to have been cured by amendment before sentence.
Held: The convictions failed. Sections 1(1) and 2(1) of the 1933 Act which . .
These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 11 February 2021; Ref: scu.180117