CORAM
UNSWORTH, JUSTICE SUPREME COURT
TAYLOR, JUSTICE SUPREME COURT
BRETT, JUSTICE SUPREME COURT
PARTIES
ELEMI EJA ESEGE AND ORS
APPELLANTS
THE QUEEN
RESPONDENTS
AREA(S) OF LAW
CRIMINAL LAW—INTERPRETATION OF STATUTES—APPEAL
SUMMARY OF FACTS
The appellants were convicted on two counts, one of which charged a conspiracy contrary to s. 422 of the Criminal Code and the other a conspiracy contrary to s. 518(6) of the Code. They appealed on the grounds that the interpretation given to the statute did not reflect the intendment of the statute.
HELD
Without entering upon a discussion at large of the meaning of the words “unlawful purpose” in s. 518(6) of the Criminal Code it will be enough to say that we are not satisfied that the count as drafted discloses a conspiracy punishable under that particular paragraph of the section and that it was for this reason that we quashed the conviction.
ISSUES
Not Available
RATIONES DECIDENDI
LITERAL RULE
“The natural meaning in their context of the words “any person, whether a particular person or not” includes both a specific named person and an unknown number of unascertained persons, and we see no grounds for not giving the words this natural meaning.” Per BRETT F.J.
CASES CITED
R. v. Newland 37 Cr. App. R. 154, 165
STATUTES REFERRED TO
The Criminal Code