The court felt bound to follow the interpretation of the meaning of bailee in the 1916 Act from Matthews, even if, given the freedom to do so it would have interpreted it differently: ‘the present case falls four square within the decision in Reg v Matthews . . That case having been quoted in the textbooks ever since, no writer had ever suggested that it was bad law . . Dealing as we are today with a statute that affects the liberty of the subject, it does not seem to me that it is permissible to adopt a different construction of the relevant words to that which has so long stood as law, and now for the first time in effect to construe them adversely to the defendant in this case.’
Sachs J, Lord Parker CJ and Browne J
[1966] 1 QB 103
Larceny Act 1916
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – Regina v Matthews CCCR 1873
(Court of Crown Cases Reserved) Interpretation of bailee in law of larceny. . .
Cited by:
Cited – Regina (Smeaton) v Secretary of State for Health and Others Admn 18-Apr-2002
The claimant challenged the Order as regards the prescription of the morning-after pill, asserting that the pill would cause miscarriages, and that therefore the use would be an offence under the 1861 Act.
Held: ‘SPUC’s case is that any . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Crime, Criminal Practice
Updated: 20 December 2021; Ref: scu.223718