82,891
edits
Shubtill v Director of Public Prosecutions: Difference between revisions
Shubtill v Director of Public Prosecutions (view source)
Revision as of 20:14, 25 October 2022
, 25 October 2022no edit summary
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
||
| Line 88: | Line 88: | ||
Dame Marjorie tells us the appellant’s licence was confined to the persons of the complainants and he respected it. | Dame Marjorie tells us the appellant’s licence was confined to the persons of the complainants and he respected it. | ||
Thus the appellant insists he 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] | Thus the appellant insists he 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] UC 35: “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, Dame Marjorie reasons, if, in the heart of the very same city, a man could not exercise a licence without being arrested. | It would be similarly perverse, Dame Marjorie reasons, if, in the heart of the very same city, a man could not exercise a licence without being arrested. I find force in this submission. | ||
====Respondent’s submissions==== | ====Respondent’s submissions==== | ||
Sir Anthony Clunge | Sir Anthony Clunge organised his principle around the principle of equivocality. A licence granted, as this one must be, by conduct requires a clarity of conduct such that a prudent bystander could be under no misapprehension as to the complainants’ intentions. | ||
Sir Anthony argues that the complainants’ behaviour could be hardly further from the model of clarity the common law requires to construe such a delegation of entitlements without explicit written or spoken word. | |||
===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]] | ||