82,883
edits
Shubtill v Director of Public Prosecutions: Difference between revisions
Shubtill v Director of Public Prosecutions (view source)
Revision as of 09:50, 20 October 2022
, 20 October 2022no edit summary
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
||
| Line 4: | Line 4: | ||
{{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 | ''Contract — Licence — Implied Licence — Whether existence of Implied Licence operates as justification for assault — Criminal Justice Act 1983'' | ||
Sir Anthony Clunge, K.C., for the respondent | |||
Dame Marjorie Wrigley, K.C. for the appellant <br> | |||
Sir Anthony Clunge, K.C., for the respondent <br> | |||
{{right|(''Cur adv. vult)''}} | {{right|(''Cur adv. vult)''}} | ||