82,891
edits
Shubtill v Director of Public Prosecutions: Difference between revisions
Shubtill v Director of Public Prosecutions (view source)
Revision as of 13:17, 26 October 2022
, 26 October 2022no edit summary
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
||
| Line 96: | Line 96: | ||
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: 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, Sir Anthony urges, lightly impute an open invitation to make mess of on a citizen just because that citizen is aggravating. The common law has long expected citizens to approach it [[Reasonable|reasonably]] and having washed their hands; it does not require them, beyond that, not to be tiresome. The mythical reasonable man is naturally a bore.<ref>{{Cite|Fardell|Potts}} | We should not, Sir Anthony urges, lightly impute an open invitation to make mess of on a citizen just because that citizen is aggravating. The common law has long expected citizens to approach it [[Reasonable|reasonably]] and having washed their hands; it does not require them, beyond that, not to be tiresome. The mythical reasonable man is naturally a bore.<ref>{{Cite|Fardell|Potts}}</ref> The court agrees. We find as fact the complainants ''were'' annoying, and as law that it makes no difference: they are entitled to civil protection. | ||
The appellants must, therefore, do enough to raise a basic sense of ''coherence'' to the the complainants’ contact as to at least raise the presumption of a licence. | The appellants must, therefore, do enough to raise a basic sense of ''coherence'' to the the complainants’ contact as to at least raise the presumption of a licence. | ||
| Line 109: | Line 109: | ||
===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. | 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. | ||