Regina v Wills: CACD 1990

The words of a statute must be construed in their context but the interpretation of ‘likely’ [in Sheppard] seems very strained. If it only excludes what is ‘highly unlikely’ it includes what is merely ‘unlikely’; ie, the result is ‘likely’ to occur although it is unlikely (but not highly unlikely) to do so. With respect, that does not seem to be a possible meaning: ‘likely’ cannot include ‘unlikely’. On the contrary, a synonym for ‘likely’ is ‘not unlikely’.

Judges:

Lord Lane CJ

Citations:

[1990] 2 Crim LR 714

Statutes:

Children and Young Persons Act 1933 1

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

DoubtedRegina v Sheppard HL 1981
The section made it an offence for anyone having care of a child to wilfully neglect the child ‘in a manner likely to cause him unnecessary suffering or injury to health’.
Held: The section speaks of an act or omission that is ‘likely’ to . .

Cited by:

CitedCream Holdings Limited and others v Banerjee and The Liverpool Daily Post and Echo Limited CA 13-Feb-2003
The defendants considered publication of alleged financial irregularities by the claimant, who sought to restrain publication. The defendants argued that under the Act, prior restraint should not be used unless a later court would be likely to . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Crime

Updated: 06 May 2022; Ref: scu.182933