The defendant had been found drunk at the wheel of his car. His keys were not in the ignition. He was convicted of being drunk in charge of the car, but appealed his conviction for failing to provide a specimen of urine. He appealed saying the verdicts were not consistent with each other.
Held: The statute was confusing. The Act was a consolidating Act, and the House considered its ability to look to earlier versions to help in interpreting the statute: ‘[where] the actual words are clear and unambiguous in their meaning it is not permissible to have recourse to the corresponding provisions in the earlier Act repealed by the consolidation Act and to treat any difference in their wording as capable of casting doubt on what is clear and unambiguous language in the consolidation Act itself.’ and ‘… in the instant case, … the actual words are clear and unambiguous in their meaning it is not permissible to have recourse to the corresponding provisions in the earlier Act repealed by the consolidation Act and to treat any difference in their wording as capable of casting doubt on what is clear and unambiguous language in the consolidation Act itself’
Citations:
[1976] 1 All ER 162
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Citing:
Appeal from – Metropolitan Police Commissioner v Curran; Regina v Curran CACD 1975
The defendant was sat drunk in his car. He had his keys, but they were not in the ignition. He was breathalysed. He later refused to provide a specimen of his urine to be analysed. He was acquited of being drunk in charge, but convicted of failing . .
Cited by:
Appeal to – Metropolitan Police Commissioner v Curran; Regina v Curran CACD 1975
The defendant was sat drunk in his car. He had his keys, but they were not in the ignition. He was breathalysed. He later refused to provide a specimen of his urine to be analysed. He was acquited of being drunk in charge, but convicted of failing . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Crime, Road Traffic
Updated: 30 April 2022; Ref: scu.200603