Shubtill v Director of Public Prosecutions: Difference between revisions

Shubtill v Director of Public Prosecutions (view source)

Revision as of 12:55, 26 October 2022

160 bytes added , 26 October 2022

no edit summary

Amwelladmin

Bureaucrats, Interface administrators, Administrators

82,891

edits

@@ Line 92: / Line 92: @@
 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====
+Sir Anthony opened brightly for the respondent, arguing that the complainants’ behaviour did not attain the clarity the common law requires to construe a licence. To the contrary, he says, it hardly could be further from it.
-Sir Anthony argues that the complainants’ behaviour did not could attain the clarity the common law requires. To the contrary, he says, it hardly could be further from it.
+We should not expect citizens to conduct their relations with the world in careful syllogisms: Sir Anthony concedes this would be too much. We agree: polite society lubricates its gears with subtle gestures. Nods, winks and waggled heads are quite enough to covey assent. The appellant knows this well. <Ref>{{Cite|Shubtill|Finchley Port Authority}}</ref>
-We should not expect citizens to conduct their relations with the world in careful syllogisms. Mr Clunge concedes this would be too much. We agree: polite society lubricates its gears with subtle gestures. Nods, winks and waggled heads are quite enough to covey assent. The respondent knows this well. <Ref>{{Cite|Shubtill|Finchley Port Authority}}</ref>
+But nor, Says Sir Anthony should we impute an invitation to make ostensive mess of one’ person lightly. The common law expects citizens to approach with reason and clean hands; it doesn't say
+ There must be a basic sense of coherence to raise a presumption.
-But nor, Says Sir Anthony should we impute an invitation to make ostensive mess lightly. There must be a basic sense of coherence to raise a presumption.
 And Ms. Bott’s cloth-headed oration, he contends, was  nowhere near. It was little short of baffling: a confused assemblage of illogicalities, sophistries, begged questions, trite slogans, miscued rhetoricals and conclusions not even hinted at by their premises. One could not with safety know that Ms Bott understood herself.