English Law is relatively unusual in being based in large part on precedents from other cases heard in higher courts. For anyone choosing to study it then, it becomes a rather heavy task of going through case after case, deciding what the ruling shows and then, ultimately, trying to apply those ruling to make sense of a new case. Students beginning to study the law tend to be given a series of standard well-known cases as the initial basis of their study. I wonder if someone has a wry smile on their face when they selected one of the key cases used to help understand what is meant by indecent assault...
R. v. Court [1988] 2 All E.R. 221 House of Lords
D., a shop assistant, pulled a 12-year-old girl visitor to the shop across his knees, and smacked her 12 times on the buttocks outside her shorts for no apparent reason. Asked by the police why he had done so, he said "I don't know: buttock fetish." He pleaded guilty to assault, but denied that the assault was indecent and contended that his statement about his "buttock fetish" should be excluded as evidence because it was merely a secret motive which was not communicated to the victim and it could not make indecent an act which was not overtly indecent. The judge having refused to exclude the evidence, D. was convicted of indecent assault and appealed, ultimately to the House of Lords.
Apart from the obvious lesson that it's a pretty dumb idea to publicly spank a 12 year old who you have no connection with (and some would say that spanking children is all bad anyway), it does seem absurdly dumb to tell the police what motivated the assault. Incidentally, he lost the appeal.
2 comments:
One can only wonder what the outcome of the trial would have been in the year 1888 instead of 1988. Different times produce different results in courts.
If there had been a similar case in 1888 that had gone to the House Of Lords, and they had dismissed the case, the judge in 1988 would have had to say not guilty in 1988.
It does also point to the problem with the standard English police caution - on making an arrest the police officer says "You do not have to say anything, but it may harm your defence if you fail to mention when questioned something which you later rely on in court. Anything you do say will be given in evidence" So if the police had asked why he smacked the girl and he hadn't answered and then found out that having a buttock fetish was a recognised medical condition that could be used as a defence, the court could infer that he was making that up because he hadn't declared it at the time!
(Seriously - the smart advice is to ask fo a solicitor before you give any answers. Better still, don't go spanking strangers against their will.)
Post a Comment