Whiteley v Chappell
A literal interpretation meant that a man who voted in the name of a dead person was not guilty of impersonating a person entitled to vote.
Facts
Under the Poor Law Amendment Act 1851, it was an offence to personate any person entitled to vote at an election. Mr Whiteley voted at a local election in the name of a man who had died before the election, using the dead man's vote. He was charged with personating a person entitled to vote.
Legal principle
The court held that Mr Whiteley was not guilty. Applying the literal rule, a dead person was not a person entitled to vote, so Mr Whiteley had not personated such a person, even though his conduct was clearly within the mischief the Act was aimed at. The case is often cited as an example of how the literal rule can produce absurd results that defeat the purpose of the legislation.
Related cases on statutory interpretation
- Adler v George [1964] 2 QB 7
- Black-Clawson International Ltd v Papierwerke Waldhof-Aschaffenburg AG [1975] AC 591
- Corkery v Carpenter [1951] 1 KB 102
- 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
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.
