Limitations regarding the use of quotes
The quotes provided here reflect statements from a specific decision. Accordingly, the International Legal Consortium (ILC) cannot guarantee that an appellate court has not reversed a lower court decision which may influence the applicability or influence of a given quote. All quotes have been selected based on the subjective evaluations undertaken by the ILC meaning that quotes provided here may not accurately or comprehensively represent a given court’s opinion or conclusion, as such quotes may have originally appeared alongside other negative opinions or accompanying facts. Further, some quotes are derived from unofficial English translations, which may alter their original meaning. We emphasize the need to review the original decision and related decisions before authoritatively relying on quotes. Using quotes provided here should not be construed as legal advice and is not intended to be a substitute for legal counsel on any subject matter in any jurisdiction. Please see the full limitations at https://www.tobaccocontrollaws.org/about.
A smoker was convicted of the offense of smoking a cigarette in a railway carriage where smoking was prohibited under a British Railway Board bylaw, made operational by an administrative decision of the railway company. The smoker appealed the conviction and, among other things, challenged the legality of the bylaw and the administrative decision bringing the bylaw into operation, arguing that they fell outside the scope of the originating law conferring powers to the British Railway Board. The Divisional Court dismissed the smoker's appeal, but allowed him to appeal to the House of Lords. Contrary to the Divisional Court's ruling, the House of Lords held that the smoker was entitled to challenge the bylaw and administrative decision, but upheld the Divisional Court's dismissal of the appeal, concluding that both the bylaw and administrative decision were lawful.