Shubtill v Director of Public Prosecutions: Difference between revisions

Shubtill v Director of Public Prosecutions (view source)

Revision as of 08:19, 19 October 2022

2,737 bytes added , 19 October 2022

no edit summary

Amwelladmin

Bureaucrats, Interface administrators, Administrators

83,223

edits

@@ Line 26: / Line 26: @@
 “Whath worth more: art or life?” she asked, rhetorically. “Ith it worth more than food? More than juthtith? Are you more contherned about the protection of a painting or the protection of our planet and people? The cotht of living crithith ith part of the cotht of oil crithith! Fuel ith unaffordable to millionth of cold, hungry familieth. They can’t even afford to heat a tin of thoup.”
-''Sunflowers'' has an estimated value of £72m, so for most ordinary people the answer to Ms. Bott’s first question is probably “the art”. That being said, it is not for this court to parse this young woman’s non-sequiturs, perplexing though they are, for she is not the one on trial here. So I shall return to the story, for it is at this point that the appellant returned to Room 43.
+''Sunflowers'' has an estimated value of £72m, so for most people the answer to Ms. Bott’s first question is probably “the art”. That being said, it is not for this court to parse this young woman’s non-sequiturs, perplexing though they are, for she is not the one on trial here. So I shall return to the story, for it is at this point that the appellant returned to Room 43.
-The appellant was by this stage also in possession of soup — chicken soup, as it happens. It seems he had no more difficulty than had Ms. Botts and her confederate in spiriting materials [[calculated]] to be of use in acts of vandalism into the National Gallery. Ms. Botts was still mid-harangue when the appellant approached her and barely registered. But her confederate as the appellant opened his soup tins, but the lower court heard in evidence, and was satisfied, her confederate applauded. and emptied them onto Ms. Botts and her confederate.
+The appellant was by this stage also in possession of soup — chicken soup, as it happens. He had acquired it from a newsagent on the Strand. It seems he found it no harder than had the protesters to spirit materials of vandalism [[calculated]] into the National Gallery.
-There was something of a melée at this point, though less than there might have been had the young protesters’ hands not been stuck fast to the wall. By the time the police were able to take her statement Ms. Botts would prove compendious and imaginative in her complaints at her treatment bythe appellant, but in the moment the most she could muster was “That’th not fair! I’m vegan!”
+Ms. Botts was still mid-harangue when the appellant approached. She barely registered him. But her confederate, a Ms. [[Gwendoline Mary Lacey]], also of Surrey, did. She watched the appellant carefully as he opened his soup tins. She made no attempt to stop him: indeed, the lower court heard in evidence, and was satisfied, that Ms. Lacey applauded. She cried, “Oh, come on!” though, as we shall see, just what she meant by that was open to interpretation.
-And that is the long and short of it: Ms. Botts and her confederate have been dealt with separately: their conduct is not, directly, at any rate, at issue before this appeal.
+In any event, having opened his tins, the appellant emptied them, all over Mesdames Botts and Lacey.
-The appellant was summarily convicted at the London and Middlesex assizes on charges of common assault with an edible weapon: in this case, pint of tinned chicken soup.
+There was something of a melée at this point, though less than there would have been had the young protesters not been stuck fast to the wall. Ms. Botts’ language became a good deal less abstruse. Patrons who were having trouble what she sought to achieve by her own actions were left in no doubt what she thought of the appellant’s. By the time the police were able to take her statement Ms. Botts would prove compendious and imaginative in her complaints at her treatment by the appellant, but in the moment the most she could muster was “It’th not fair! I’m vegan!”
-The defendant’s appeal is unusual so I shall take the unusual step of setting it out in full.
+And that is the long and short of it: Mesdames Botts and Lacey have been dealt with separately: their conduct is not, directly, at any rate, at issue before this appeal.
+The appellant was summarily convicted at the London and Middlesex assizes on charges of common assault with an edible weapon: in this case, a pint of tinned chicken soup.
+The appellant’s grounds for appeal are unusual so I shall take the unusual step of setting it out in full.
+=== Arguments ===
+The ingredients of common assault with an edible weapon are not set out in the Criminal Justice Act, but from decided cases are clear.
+==== Assault ====
+A person commits an assault if he performs an act (which does not, for this purpose, include a mere omission to act) by which he intentionally or recklessly causes another person to apprehend immediate unlawful violence.
+==== Weapon ====
+If that assault is conducted by means of aparatus other than by the defendant’s own person or closing covering it, there will be a weapon.
+==== Edible ====
+If that weapon takes the form of consumable biomass, whether liquid or solid or, as in this case, something in between, it may prima facie be treated as edible. It need not edible by, nor palatable to, the victim.<ref>See ''R v Hemlsley'', in which aggravated battery by broccoli was held to consistute assault with an edible weapon notwithstanding the complainant’s allergy to certain varieties of wild cabbage, including broccoli.</ref>
+==== Violence ====
+It is clear that violence can include force involving no injury, and we are satisfied that pouring edible biomass over another person amounts to violence.
+==== Unlawful ====
+At this stage, the prosecution must feel it is in the home straight. There question is a final question: whether any legal grounds exist to justify such an assault with an edible weapon. The complainants, plainly, did not consent to having soup tipped over them. The appellant’s action was not one of self-defence, the defence of another, and nor could it be reasonably be said to have been in defence of property: by the time the appellant returned with his soup, the complainants’ attack on the painting was complete. The jury decided that, having glued themselves to the wall, and run out of soup, it would have been plain to a reasonable person that they were in no position to continue it.
+The lower court accepted the prosecution’s case in full, and entered a conviction. The appellant was sentenced to anger management course. The appellant sought leave to appeal, was granted it, and we now fund ourselves gathered together once more.
+=== The Appeal ===
+The appellant is adamant that anger formed no part of his motivation for acting on
 </div>