|
|
|
Home > Law > Law glossary > Law glossary
Prince Ernest of Hanover v Attorney General (1957)
Last modified: Thu Feb 23 16:37:37 2006
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in effect indefinitely if they are not repealed and (b) on the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
Law glossary index
|
|
|
|
Shameless plug
|
 By the author of this site. Buy on-line from Amazon USA | UK
|
|