Shubtill v Director of Public Prosecutions: Difference between revisions

<big>{{citet|Shubtill|Director of Public Prosecutions|2022|JCLR|46}}</big></center> <br><br>

{{smallcaps|{{Cocklecarrot}}}}: London’s National Gallery has stood for 170 years on Trafalgar Square’s northern boundary. Originally conceived by Parliamentary Commission to “give the people an ennobling enjoyment”, the Gallery houses paintings which, on any account, are the highest peaks of the grand massif that is the western cultural tradition. Cimabue’s ''Virgin and Child with Two Angels'' hangs there. So does Leonardo’s ''Madonna of the Rocks''. The Gallery records the history’s inevitable progress: Constable’s ''The Hay Wain'' graces a wall not far from Turner’s requiem to the obsolescence of sail, ''The Fighting Temeraire''. No less fulsomely endowed is the Gallery’s modern art collection: Cézannes hangs beside Monets, who accompany Renoirs and Rousseaus. [''Rousseaux? — Ed]''  

===Facts===

Without ado, the complainants vaulted a velvet rope, emptied their soup onto the ''Sunflowers,'' glued themselves to a nearby wall and began shouting at everyone.  

One — the appellant — did not. He exited Room 43 unobserved, and at a decent clip. We shall hear more about him shortly.

The complainants warmed to their task. Ms. [[Violet Elizabeth Bott]], of Surrey, was the more loquacious. She embarked upon a monologue.

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!”  

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!”

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.  

=== Ingredients of the offence===

First, there must be an “assault”.  

Apparatus beyond a defendant’s own person or clothing will be a “weapon”: where it comprises 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”.  

Lastly, that violence must be “unlawful”.  

The appellant sought leave to appeal, was granted it, and we now fund ourselves gathered together once more.  

=== The Appeal ===

====Appellant’s submissions====

Dame Marjorie’s submissions run like this:

====Respondent’s submissions====

Now, 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 ambivalent 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>

Sir Anthony contends that the appellants must, therefore, establish a basic sense of ''coherence'' to the complainants’ behaviour before there can be any talk of a licence. And Ms. Bott’s cloth-headed oration, he contends, had none. It was baffling: a confused assemblage of illogicalities, sophistries, begged questions, trite slogans, miscued rhetoricals and conclusions not even hinted at by whatever meagre premises led up to them. One could not safely say that even [[Violet Elizabeth Bott|Ms. Bott]] herself understood her point.

“Ms. Bott’s behaviour was a cry for professional help, not for a face full of soup.”  

===Judgment===

The “[[officious bystander]]” was, in MacKinnon LJ’s original reckoning, an ''objective'' measure, derived by reference to that hypothetical figure known to all in a modern society, the “amateur referee on Clapham Common”. Unlike her fellow hypothetical the [[reasonable person]], the officious bystander is not “devoid of human weaknesses, without a single saving vice”<ref>''[[Fardell v Potts]]''</ref>, but rather is shot through with them. He is, after all, ''officious'': pedantic, literal, punctilious, parochial, small-minded, given to wielding the small authorities life bestows upon him for the simple pleasure brought by wreaking inconvenience on others.

Here we find a paradox: we fabricate our “objective” test from the lived experiences of ordinary people ''—'' each by its own terms subjective ''—'' as they are then assembled by those who sit in judgment from the bench. Somehow, the court must extrude from this collection of biases objective truth. We fear at its root they may be just the same.

{{sa}}

*[[Albert Haddock]]