The K-Zone: Prince Ernest of Hanover v Attorney General (1957)

This case ([1957] AC 536), like AshfordVThornton1818, demonstrates that English courts are obliged to assume (a) that statutes remain in effect indefinitely if they are not repealed and (b) on the whole, where the words of a statute are clear an unambiguous they must be applies accordingly.

The Statute of 1705 (4 and 5 Anne C16) set out that the English Crown was to pass to Princess Sophia, Electress of Hanover in the event that Queen Anne died without leaving an heir. The Act then made provision that Sophia and her descendants should be regarded as naturalized English subjects. It seems fairly clear from the preamble to the Act that the purpose of naturalization was for Sophia and her children to become aquainted with English customs and laws during the life of Queen Anne, so that in the event that she (Anne) die childless they would be better able to take up the duties of the Monarchy. However, the Act doesn't say that; it grants naturalization to all decendants of Sophia of Hanover in perpetuity. Prince Ernest, a distant descendant of Sophia, applied for British Citizenship on the basis of the provision of the 1705 Act; this was refused by the High Court, but allowed by the Court of Appeal; this ruling was confirmed by the House of Lords. Neither the fact that a statute may lead to absurd and inconvenient results, nor that its provisions are completely spent, are reasons not to apply it when the interpretation is clear.

CaseLaw