Attorney-General’s Ref (No. 1 of 1975) [1975] 2 All ER 684
Judgement for the case Attorney-General’s Ref (No. 1 of 1975)
Table Of Contents
Defendant laced V’s drink secretly, knowing that V would drive soon.
He was charged with aiding, abetting, counselling or procuring a motoring offence and was acquitted with “no case to answer”.
CA said this was wrong since he HAD procured an offence surreptitiously. He said that Aid, abet, counsel and procure must mean different things since parliament would not have used four words if one or two would do.
In this case Defendant “procured” the crime, since “procure” means “to produce by endeavour”. The terms should be given ordinary meaning.
For Further Study on Attorney-General’s Ref (No. 1 of 1975)
Criminal Law notes fully updated for recent exams at Oxford and Cambrid...
In depth notes with lecturer and textbook comments included as well as ...
Need instant answers? Our AI exam tutor is here to help.
Ask questions 🙋 Get answers 📔 It's simple 👁️👄👁️
Our AI is educated by the highest scoring students across all subjects and schools. Join hundreds of your peers today.
Get StartedRelated Product Samples
These product samples contain the same concepts we cover in this case.
| Criminal Law | Complicity Short Notes (13 pages) |
| Criminal law | Complicity Notes (23 pages) |
| Criminal Law | Problem Questions Notes (38 pages) |
Criminal Law notes fully updated for recent exams at Oxford and Cambrid...
Since 2010, Oxbridge Notes has been a trusted education marketplace, supplying high-quality materials from top achievers at universities like Oxford, Cambridge, LSE, Harvard, and Yale.