Corkery v Carpenter
The mischief rule meant that a bicycle was a carriage for the purposes of an offence of being drunk in charge of a carriage.
Facts
Mr Corkery was found drunk while pushing his bicycle along a road. He was charged under section 12 of the Licensing Act 1872 with being drunk in charge of a carriage on a highway. The Act did not mention bicycles, which had barely existed when it was passed.
Legal principle
The Divisional Court upheld the conviction. The purpose of the Act was to prevent people from using any form of transport on the highway while drunk, because of the danger to themselves and others. Applying the mischief rule, a bicycle was a carriage within the meaning of the Act. The case also illustrates the principle that a statute may apply to things that did not exist when it was passed, if they fall within the purpose of the provision.
Related cases on statutory interpretation
- Adler v George [1964] 2 QB 7
- Black-Clawson International Ltd v Papierwerke Waldhof-Aschaffenburg AG [1975] AC 591
- Grey v Pearson (1857) 6 HLC 61
- Heydon's Case (1584) 3 Co Rep 7a
- Inco Europe Ltd v First Choice Distribution [2000] 1 WLR 586
- Jones v Tower Boot Co Ltd [1997] ICR 254
- London and North Eastern Railway Co v Berriman [1946] AC 278
- Magor and St Mellons Rural District Council v Newport Corp [1952] AC 189
Studying english legal system? Our tutors help you understand and apply cases like this in essays, problem questions and exams. Request a quote or browse our law notes.
This summary is for study and revision and is not legal advice. Although our case summaries are checked for accuracy, we do not guarantee that they are free from errors or omissions. Always read the full judgment for the court's reasoning.
