Shubtill v Director of Public Prosecutions: Difference between revisions

Shubtill v Director of Public Prosecutions (view source)

1 byte added , 26 October 2022

no edit summary

83,209

edits

@@ Line 4: / Line 4: @@
 : Oct 24 {{right|{{Cocklecarrot}}}}
-{{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''
+{{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.
 Dame Marjorie Wrigley, K.C. for the appellant <br>
 Sir Anthony Clunge, K.C., for the respondent <br>
 {{right|(''Cur adv. vult)''}}