Shubtill v Director of Public Prosecutions: Difference between revisions

Shubtill v Director of Public Prosecutions (view source)

Revision as of 22:26, 18 October 2022

356 bytes added , 18 October 2022

no edit summary

Amwelladmin

Bureaucrats, Interface administrators, Administrators

82,891

edits

@@ Line 2: / Line 2: @@
 <big>{{citet|Shubtill|Director of Public Prosecutions|2022|JCLR|46}}</big></center> <br><br>
-{{quote|{{smallcaps|Appeal}} from an order of the court of criminal appeal refusing leave to [[Ernest Shubtill]], the appellant, to appeal against his conviction for the wilful battery of [[Violet Elizabeth Botts]]. The appellant was convicted on 17 October 2022, at London & Middx Assizes.}}
+{{quote|{{smallcaps|Appeal}} against the conviction of [[Ernest Shubtill]], the appellant, for the assault with an edible weapon of [[Violet Elizabeth Botts]]. The appellant was convicted on 17 October 2022, at the London & Middx Assizes.}}
 {{right|(''Cur adv. vult)''}}
@@ Line 27: / Line 27: @@
 ''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.
-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. The appellant approached the women. Ms Botts was still mid-harangue. The appellant opened his soup tins and emptied them onto Ms. Botts and her confederate. There was something of a melée at this point, though perhaps less than there might have been had Ms Botts’ hands not been stuck fast to the wall. By the time the police were able to take her statement Ms. Botts would prove imaginative in her complaints, but at the time thje most she couild muster was “But I’m vegan.”
+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, still mid-harangue, barely registered as the appellant approached, opened his soup tins and emptied them onto Ms. Botts and her confederate.
+There was something of a melée at this point, though perhaps 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 imaginative in her complaints, but at the time the most she could muster was “That’th not fair! I’m vegan!”
+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.  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.
+The defendant’s appeal is unusual.
 ===The soup===
 It was [[common ground]] that the soup was tomato flavoured, and manufactured by the Heinz company of Pennsylvania, but the parties have disagree sharply on the significance of this fact.