82,891
edits
Shubtill v Director of Public Prosecutions: Difference between revisions
Shubtill v Director of Public Prosecutions (view source)
Revision as of 09:47, 20 October 2022
, 20 October 2022no edit summary
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
||
| Line 3: | Line 3: | ||
{{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.}} | ||
Dame Marjorie Wrigley, K.C. for the appellant | |||
Sir Anthony Clunge, K.C., for the respondent | |||
{{right|(''Cur adv. vult)''}} | {{right|(''Cur adv. vult)''}} | ||
| Line 69: | Line 72: | ||
The appellant was doing no more than exercising his legal rights. Mr Baxter Morley referred us to a dictum in the famous case of {{casenote|Board of Inland Revenue|Haddock}} [1930] UL : “it would be a nice thing if, in the heart of the commercial capital of the world, a man could not convey a negotiable instrument down the street without being arrested.” | The appellant was doing no more than exercising his legal rights. Mr Baxter Morley referred us to a dictum in the famous case of {{casenote|Board of Inland Revenue|Haddock}} [1930] UL : “it would be a nice thing if, in the heart of the commercial capital of the world, a man could not convey a negotiable instrument down the street without being arrested.” | ||
It would be | It would be similarly perverse, Mr. Baxter Morley tells us, if, in the heart of the very same commercial capital, a man could not exercise a licence without being arrested. | ||
===Respondent’s submissions=== | ===Respondent’s submissions=== | ||
Sir Anthony Clunge | |||
===Judgment=== | ===Judgment=== | ||
The appellant’s proposition is that, having loudly announced their stance, the complainants are not well positioned to object should someone else follow it. What is soup for a goose is soup for a gander, so to speak. By their own actions, the complainants licensed those who found them irritating to cover them in soup.</div> | The appellant’s proposition is that, having loudly announced their stance, the complainants are not well positioned to object should someone else follow it. What is soup for a goose is soup for a gander, so to speak. By their own actions, the complainants licensed those who found them irritating to cover them in soup.</div> | ||
{{sa}} | {{sa}} | ||
*[[Albert Haddock]] | *[[Albert Haddock]] | ||