The Jolly Contrarian

Shubtill v Director of Public Prosecutions: Difference between revisions

Page Discussion

Shubtill v Director of Public Prosecutions (view source)

Revision as of 09:58, 20 October 2022

16 bytes added ,  20 October 2022
no edit summary
No edit summary
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>
2022: Oct 24 {{right|{{Cocklecarrot}}


{{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 25: Line 27:
Media reports tell us there were gasps, roars and a shout of “''Oh, my gosh!''” from nearby patrons, but beyond this, the bystanders took little action. Most stood transfixed. One did not. That one was the appellant. He exited Room 43, largely unobserved, and at a decent clip. We shall hear more about the appellant shortly.
Media reports tell us there were gasps, roars and a shout of “''Oh, my gosh!''” from nearby patrons, but beyond this, the bystanders took little action. Most stood transfixed. One did not. That one was the appellant. He exited Room 43, largely unobserved, and at a decent clip. We shall hear more about the appellant shortly.


In the mean time, the women continued with their shouting. Before long — with curious haste, I am inclined to think — the world’s media representatives arrived, with cameras, cine films, videographs and outside broadcast units. They formed a makeshift press Gallery. Their scrum may have impeded Gallery security — again, a regrettable dearth of evidence on the point  — but by all accounts no-one: not the patrons, nor members of the press, nor Gallery staff, made any effort to eject the young women, or even stop them talking. By now, Mr. Baxter-Morley contends, they were in any case fastened to the wall securely with Araldite{{Tm}} such that they could not be removed even if one wanted to.
In the mean time, the women continued with their shouting. Before long — with curious haste, I am inclined to think — the world’s media representatives arrived, with cameras, cine films, videographs and outside broadcast units. They formed a makeshift press Gallery. Their scrum may have impeded Gallery security — again, a regrettable dearth of evidence on the point  — but by all accounts no-one: not the patrons, nor members of the press, nor Gallery staff, made any effort to eject the young women, or even stop them talking. By now, Dame Marjorie contends, they were in any case fastened to the wall securely with Araldite{{Tm}} such that they could not be removed even if one wanted to.


The young women warmed to their task. The more loquacious of the two was Ms. [[Violet Elizabeth Bott]], of Surrey. She embarked upon something of a monologue.
The young women warmed to their task. The more loquacious of the two was Ms. [[Violet Elizabeth Bott]], of Surrey. She embarked upon something of a monologue.
Line 66: Line 68:
Throughout the episode, the complainants struck a tone of ''righteousness''. There is little doubt that is so: indeed, it carried on in their evidence before the lower court, which Ms. Bott delivered with the same stridency as she had her lecture at the Gallery.  
Throughout the episode, the complainants struck a tone of ''righteousness''. There is little doubt that is so: indeed, it carried on in their evidence before the lower court, which Ms. Bott delivered with the same stridency as she had her lecture at the Gallery.  


Mr. Baxter-Morley advanced the striking argument that the complainants’ evident willingness to ''righteously'' pour soup on much-loved public artworks notwithstanding a clear lack of permission can be generalised to the view that “one may pour soup on, or glue things to, things one finds irritating”: that, indeed, one may do this without the owner’s consent; indeed, even notwithstanding a binding contractual obligation, in the form of a ticket containing terms of entry, ''not'' to do such a thing. The appellants’ behaviour, Mr. Baxter-Morley says, conveyed the complainants’ personal conviction that such behaviour is acceptable and appropriate. The appellants ''licenced'' that behaviour.
Dame Marjorie advanced the striking argument that the complainants’ evident willingness to ''righteously'' pour soup on much-loved public artworks notwithstanding a clear lack of permission can be generalised to the view that “one may pour soup on, or glue things to, things one finds irritating”: that, indeed, one may do this without the owner’s consent; indeed, even notwithstanding a binding contractual obligation, in the form of a ticket containing terms of entry, ''not'' to do such a thing. The appellants’ behaviour, Dame Marjorie says, conveyed the complainants’ personal conviction that such behaviour is acceptable and appropriate. The appellants ''licenced'' that behaviour.


Now, to Gallery patrons, a person who pours soup over a celebrated painting, glues herself to the floor and then embarks upon a monologue of loud, self-righteous non-sequiturs is, on any reasonable account, irritating. And, if she has done a decent job with the glue, stuck. The appellant was a patron of the gallery. His evidence, and we cannot gainsay it, is that he was irritated by the complainants. So he took advantage of the licence they had granted.
Now, to Gallery patrons, a person who pours soup over a celebrated painting, glues herself to the floor and then embarks upon a monologue of loud, self-righteous non-sequiturs is, on any reasonable account, irritating. And, if she has done a decent job with the glue, stuck. The appellant was a patron of the gallery. His evidence, and we cannot gainsay it, is that he was irritated by the complainants. So he took advantage of the licence they had granted.


It is an ancient principle of natural justice that ''[[nemo dat quod non habet]]'': no-one may give what she does not have. The complainants could not a grant the licence to damage other person’s property, only their own. Mr. Baxter Morley tells us the appellant’s soup-pouring licence was confined to the persons of the complainants. He respected the conditions and limits of his licence.
It is an ancient principle of natural justice that ''[[nemo dat quod non habet]]'': no-one may give what she does not have. The complainants could not a grant the licence to damage other person’s property, only their own. Dame Marjorie tells us the appellant’s soup-pouring licence was confined to the persons of the complainants. He respected the conditions and limits of his licence.


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. Dame Marjorie 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 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.
It would be similarly perverse, Dame Marjorie 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
Sir Anthony Clunge
Retrieved from "https://jollycontrarian.com/index.php?title=Special:MobileDiff/68498"