Shubtill v Director of Public Prosecutions: Difference between revisions

no edit summary
No edit summary
No edit summary
Line 4: Line 4:
2022: Oct 24 {{right|{{Cocklecarrot}}}}
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.}}
{{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.}}
 


''Contract — Licence — Implied Licence — Whether existence of Implied Licence operates as justification for assault — Criminal Justice Act 1983 —  Reasonableness — [[Officious bystander]] — Objectivity of test — Inherent subjectivity of objectivity''
''Contract — Licence — Implied Licence — Whether existence of Implied Licence operates as justification for assault — Criminal Justice Act 1983 —  Reasonableness — [[Officious bystander]] — Objectivity of test — Inherent subjectivity of objectivity''


Dame Marjorie Wrigley, K.C. for the appellant <br>
Dame Marjorie Wrigley, K.C. for the appellant <br>