82,891
edits
Shubtill v Director of Public Prosecutions: Difference between revisions
Shubtill v Director of Public Prosecutions (view source)
Revision as of 13:29, 26 October 2022
, 26 October 2022no edit summary
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
||
| Line 23: | Line 23: | ||
Just after 11am, two young women entered Room 43 of the Gallery. Dressed in matching white tee-shirts, they might have been mistaken, at a glance, for devotees of ''Wham!'' or ''Frankie Goes To Hollywood''. No arguments were advanced, either way, but their tee-shirts read “{{caps|Just Stop Oil}}” and not “{{caps|Relax!}}” or “{{caps|Choose Life}}”, so we can suppose they were not. In any case, nothing turns on it. | Just after 11am, two young women entered Room 43 of the Gallery. Dressed in matching white tee-shirts, they might have been mistaken, at a glance, for devotees of ''Wham!'' or ''Frankie Goes To Hollywood''. No arguments were advanced, either way, but their tee-shirts read “{{caps|Just Stop Oil}}” and not “{{caps|Relax!}}” or “{{caps|Choose Life}}”, so we can suppose they were not. In any case, nothing turns on it. | ||
Being a normal Friday at season-end, the Gallery was busy. The women did not attract the attention of the Gallery’s security detail. This the Gallery has since come to regret, for the women had, concealed about their persons, containers of soup. Soon it became clear they had not brought them for lunch. Without ado, the women vaulted a low velvet rope, emptied their soup tins onto the ''Sunflowers,'' glued | Being a normal Friday at season-end, the Gallery was busy. The women did not attract the attention of the Gallery’s security detail. This the Gallery has since come to regret, for the women had, concealed about their persons, containers of soup. Soon it became clear they had not brought them for lunch. Without ado, the women vaulted a low velvet rope, emptied their soup tins onto the ''Sunflowers,'' glued t | ||
elves to a nearby wall and began shouting at everyone. | |||
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. | 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. | ||
| Line 60: | Line 61: | ||
Secondly, it must be conducted with an “edible weapon”. | Secondly, it must be conducted with an “edible weapon”. | ||
Apparatus beyond a defendant’s own person or clothing will be a “weapon”: where it takes the form of consumable biomass, ''prima facie'' it maybe treated as ''edible''. It need not be eaten by, nor even palatable to, the victim.<ref>See ''R v | Apparatus beyond a defendant’s own person or clothing will be a “weapon”: where it takes the form of consumable biomass, ''prima facie'' it maybe treated as ''edible''. It need not be eaten by, nor even palatable to, the victim.<ref>See ''R v Helmsley'', in which battery by steamed broccoli was held to constitute assault with an edible weapon notwithstanding the complainant’s allergy to certain varieties of wild cabbage, including broccoli.</ref> | ||
Thirdly, there must be apprehension of “immediate violence”. | Thirdly, there must be apprehension of “immediate violence”. | ||
| Line 94: | Line 95: | ||
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 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. | ||
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. < | 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>''[[Shubtill v Port Authority of Finchley]]''</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> | 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>''[[Fardell v 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 110: | ||
===Judgment=== | ===Judgment=== | ||
This last submission may have been an ingenuity too far. For while the “[[officious bystander]]” was, in MacKinnon LJ’s reckoning, an objective measure, derived by reference to the mythical “amateur referee on Clapham Common” — a hypothetical figure known to all in a modern society, here we need not conjecture how an ''imaginary'' officious bystander would have reacted, because here there was an actual one: the appellant. | |||
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. | ||