82,890
edits
Shubtill v Director of Public Prosecutions: Difference between revisions
Shubtill v Director of Public Prosecutions (view source)
Revision as of 09:02, 27 October 2022
, 27 October 2022no edit summary
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
||
| Line 35: | Line 35: | ||
One — the appellant — did not. He exited Room 43 unobserved, and at a decent clip. We shall hear more about him shortly. | One — the appellant — did not. He exited Room 43 unobserved, and at a decent clip. We shall hear more about him shortly. | ||
In the mean time, the complainants continued with their shouting. Presently — with curious haste, I am inclined to think — representatives of the world’s media arrived, with cameras, cine films, videographs and outside broadcast units. They formed a makeshift press gallery. Their scrum may have impeded | In the mean time, the complainants continued with their shouting. Presently — with curious haste, I am inclined to think — representatives of the world’s media arrived, with cameras, cine films, videographs and outside broadcast units. They formed a makeshift press gallery. Their scrum may have impeded security but by all accounts no-one: not the patrons, nor the press, nor Gallery staff, made any effort to eject the complainants, or even stop them talking. By now, they were stuck fast to the wall with Araldite{{Tm}} and could not be removed in any case. | ||
The complainants warmed to their task. Ms. [[Violet Elizabeth Bott]], of Surrey, was the more loquacious. She embarked upon a monologue. | The complainants warmed to their task. Ms. [[Violet Elizabeth Bott]], of Surrey, was the more loquacious. She embarked upon a monologue. | ||
| Line 41: | Line 41: | ||
“Whath worth more: art or life?” she asked, rhetorically. “Ith it worth more than food? More than juthtith? Are you more contherned about the protection of a painting or the protection of our planet and people? The cotht of living crithith ith part of the cotht of oil crithith! Fuel ith unaffordable to millionth of cold, hungry familieth. They can’t even afford to heat a tin of thoup.” | “Whath worth more: art or life?” she asked, rhetorically. “Ith it worth more than food? More than juthtith? Are you more contherned about the protection of a painting or the protection of our planet and people? The cotht of living crithith ith part of the cotht of oil crithith! Fuel ith unaffordable to millionth of cold, hungry familieth. They can’t even afford to heat a tin of thoup.” | ||
''Sunflowers'' is estimated to be worth £72m, so | ''Sunflowers'' is estimated to be worth £72m, so many would answer Ms. Bott’s first question with “the art”. That being said, it is not for this court to parse Ms. Bott’s non-sequiturs, perplexing though they are, for she is not the one on trial here. So I shall return to the story, for it is at this point that the appellant returned to Room 43. | ||
The appellant was by now also carrying soup — chicken soup, as it happens — that he had acquired from a newsagent on the Strand. He found it no harder than had the complainants to spirit into the Gallery. | The appellant was by now also carrying soup — chicken soup, as it happens — that he had acquired from a newsagent on the Strand. He found it no harder than had the complainants to spirit it into the Gallery. | ||
When the appellant approached her, Ms. Botts was still mid-harangue: she barely registered him. But her confederate, a Ms. [[Gwendoline Mary Lacey]], also of Surrey, did. She made no attempt to stop the appellant as he opened his soup tins. Indeed, the lower court heard in evidence that Ms. Lacey applauded when, at first, the appellant stepped forward, crying, “Oh, thuper! Come on and join uth!” | When the appellant approached her, Ms. Botts was still mid-harangue: she barely registered him. But her confederate, a Ms. [[Gwendoline Mary Lacey]], also of Surrey, did. She made no attempt to stop the appellant as he opened his soup tins. Indeed, the lower court heard in evidence that Ms. Lacey applauded when, at first, the appellant stepped forward, crying, “Oh, thuper! Come on and join uth!” | ||
In any event, having opened his tins, the appellant emptied them | In any event, having opened his tins, the appellant emptied them not upon a painting, but upon the complainants. | ||
There was a mêlée at this point, though less than there might have been had the complainants not been stuck fast to the wall. Ms. Botts’ language became a good deal less abstruse. By the time the police obtained her statement Ms. Botts would prove imaginative in her complaint but, in the moment, all she could muster was “It’th not fair! It’th dithguthting! I’m vegan!” | There was a mêlée at this point, though less than there might have been had the complainants not been stuck fast to the wall. Ms. Botts’ language became a good deal less abstruse. By the time the police obtained her statement Ms. Botts would prove imaginative in her complaint but, in the moment, all she could muster was “It’th not fair! It’th dithguthting! I’m vegan!” | ||
| Line 53: | Line 53: | ||
And that is the long and short of it: The complainants have been dealt with separately: their conduct is not, directly, at issue before this tribunal. | And that is the long and short of it: The complainants have been dealt with separately: their conduct is not, directly, at issue before this tribunal. | ||
The appellant was summarily convicted at the London & Middlesex Assizes charged with common assault with an edible weapon | The appellant was summarily convicted at the London & Middlesex Assizes charged with common assault with an edible weapon. The appellant’s grounds for appeal are unusual so I shall set them out in full. | ||
The appellant’s grounds for appeal are unusual so I shall set them out in full. | |||
=== Ingredients of the offence=== | === Ingredients of the offence=== | ||