The defendant appealed by case stated against his conviction by the magistrates for entering the UK without a passport. He had relied on a false passport povided to him by an agent, and had returned it to the facilitator. He was therefore unable to present it on interview.
Held: The appeal succeded. The Act was ill drafted but not ambiguous as to what was required of him at interview – was it an original passport or the one presented by him on entry. The Act required the production of an original passport, and he therefore had a reasonable excuse for not producing one, it having been impossible to obtain one in his country of origin. The court questioned the use of the Pepper v Hart doctrine in a criminal trial.
Lord Phillips of Worth Matravers said: ‘I would, however, question the use of Pepper v Hart in the context of a criminal prosecution. Mr Chalk was not able to refer the court to any case in which Pepper v Hart has been used in that context. If a criminal statute is ambiguous, I would question whether it is appropriate by the use of Pepper v Hart to extend the ambit of the statute so as to impose criminal liability upon a defendant where in the absence of Parliamentary material the court would not do so. It seems to me at least arguable that if a criminal statute is ambiguous the defendant should have the benefit of the ambiguity.’
Judges:
Lord Phillips of Worth Matravers, Lord Chief Justice and Mr Justice Roderick Evans
Citations:
Times 01-Nov-2006, [2006] EWHC 2701 (Admin), [2007] 1 WLR 2022, [2007] 2 All ER 425
Links:
Statutes:
Asylum and Immigration (Treatment of Claimants etc) Act 2004
Citing:
Considered – Pepper (Inspector of Taxes) v Hart HL 26-Nov-1992
Reference to Parliamentary Papers behind Statute
The inspector sought to tax the benefits in kind received by teachers at a private school in having their children educated at the school for free. Having agreed this was a taxable emolument, it was argued as to whether the taxable benefit was the . .
Cited by:
Cited – Tabnak, Regina v CACD 19-Feb-2007
The defendant appealed against his conviction under section 35 of the 2004 Act, having pleaded guilty after an adverse ruling as to the law. After being refused asylum and several failed appeals he had refused to give assistance in providing the . .
Cited – Khalif, Regina (on The Application of) v Isleworth Crown Court Admn 31-Mar-2015
The defendant appealed against his conviction under the 2004 Act on his plea of guilty saying that he had been given erroneous legal advice as to section 2(4)(c). . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Crime, Immigration, Constitutional
Updated: 08 July 2022; Ref: scu.246361