R v Oakes

JurisdictionEngland & Wales
CourtCourt of Appeal
Judgment Date1959
Year1959
Date1959

Get this document and AI-powered insights with a free trial of vLex and Vincent AI

Get Started for Free

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex
27 cases
  • Public Prosecutor v Low Kok Heng
    • Singapore
    • High Court (Singapore)
    • 31 July 2007
    ...is unfavourable to an accused person. [emphasis added] This observation is made on the authority of the English case of Regina v Oakes [1959] 2 QB 350. The court in that case decided that the conjunction “and” should be read as “or” despite the fact that such a construction of the statutory......
  • Director of Lands & Mines Penang; Yew Lean Finance Development (M) Sdn Bhd
    • Malaysia
    • High Court (Malaysia)
    • 1 January 1977
  • PP v Sharikat Perusahan Makanan Haiwan Bekerja Sama-Sama
    • Malaysia
    • High Court (Malaysia)
    • 1 January 1969
  • Att Gen v Donalds
    • Cayman Islands
    • Grand Court (Cayman Islands)
    • 21 November 1997
    ...Shore, [1950] 1 K.B. 708; [1950] 1 All E.R. 276. (5) Grey v. Pearson(1857), 6 H.L. Cas. 61; 10 E.R. 1216, considered. (6) R. v. Oakes, [1959] 2 Q.B. 350; [1959] 2 All E.R. 92, dicta of Lord Parker, C.J. applied. (7) R. v. Whittaker, 1986-87 CILR 189, explained. (8) Warburton v. LovelandENR(......
  • Get Started for Free
3 books & journal articles
  • WHERE JUDICIAL AND LEGISLATIVE POWERS CONFLICT *
    • Singapore
    • Singapore Academy of Law Journal No. 2016, December 2016
    • 1 December 2016
    ...44WX v WW[2009] 3 SLR(R) 573 at [17]. 45 Derek Auchie, “The Undignified Death of the Casus Omissus Rule”(2004) 25 Stat L Rev 40 at 43. 46[1959] 2 WLR 694. 47 c 75. 48 Derek Auchie, “The Undignified Death of the Casus Omissus Rule”(2004) 25 Stat L Rev 40 at 43. 49[1964] 2 WLR 542. 50 Derek A......
  • AND AND 'OR' IN A STATUTE
    • Nigeria
    • DSC Publications Online Sasegbon’s Judicial Dictionary of Nigerian Law. First edition A
    • 7 September 2019
    ...12th edn. Pages 232-234. Instances can be found in such cases as John G. Stein & Co. Ltd. v. O’hanlon (1965) A.C. 890: R. v. Oakes (1959) 2 Q.B. 350; and Re Mills (1967) 2 W.L.R. 580. Such interpretation may be quite useful in order to avoid absurd or impracticable results. Short of suc......
  • Preliminary Sections
    • Nigeria
    • DSC Publications Online Sasegbon’s Judicial Dictionary of Nigerian Law. First edition Preliminary Sections Volume 1
    • 7 September 2019
    ...R v. Liddle (1930) 21 Criminal Appeal Reports 3………..........……..257, 261, 269 R v. Oakes (1959) 2 Q.B. 350.............................................................................308 R. Benkay (Nig.) Ltd. v. Cadbury (Nig.) Plc (2006) 6 N.W.L.R. (Pt. 976) 338…………...............................