82,891
edits
Shubtill v Director of Public Prosecutions: Difference between revisions
Shubtill v Director of Public Prosecutions (view source)
Revision as of 08:29, 19 October 2022
, 19 October 2022no edit summary
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{cn}}<center>In the Court of Appeal <br><br> | {{cn}}<center>In the Court of Appeal <br><br> | ||
<big>{{citet|Shubtill|Director of Public Prosecutions|2022|JCLR|46}}</big></center> <br><br> | <big>{{citet|Shubtill|Director of Public Prosecutions|2022|JCLR|46}}</big></center> <br><br> | ||
{{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.}} | {{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.}} | ||
| Line 46: | Line 45: | ||
==== Assault ==== | ==== 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. | 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 [[Intention|intentionally]] or [[Reckless|recklessly]] causes another person to apprehend immediate unlawful violence. | ||
==== Weapon ==== | ==== Weapon ==== | ||
If that assault is conducted by means of | If that assault is conducted by means of apparatus other than by the defendant’s own person or clothing reasonably covering it, it will be conducted with a “weapon”. | ||
==== Edible ==== | ==== 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 | 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 constitute assault with an edible weapon notwithstanding the complainant’s allergy to certain varieties of wild cabbage, including broccoli.</ref> | ||
==== Violence ==== | ==== Violence ==== | ||
| Line 65: | Line 64: | ||
The appellant is adamant that anger formed no part of his motivation for acting on | The appellant is adamant that anger formed no part of his motivation for acting on | ||
</div> | </div> | ||
{{sa}} | |||
*[[Ernest Shubtill]] | |||
{{ref}} | |||