Thursday, June 10, 2010
A Court of Appeal judgment caught my eye this morning for a couple of reasons (as well as the fact that it is printed in today's Times). The case of R v Burns reported here settles the significant point that your right to eject someone from your home using reasonable force does not extend to your motor car. The case was seen as being sufficiently important to be chaired by Lord Judge, no less.
The unfortunate, or should we say incautious, Mr. Burns, apparently struck a deal with a 'sex worker' to pay £50 for what my more vulgar friends would call a 'blow job' but which the delicate souls in the Court of Appeal Criminal Division prefer to call 'oral sex'. Unfortunately Mr. Burns' ardour cooled when he got a better look at his rented partner; I infer that a feeling of 'Oh No!' induced rapid detumescence and prompted him to sling her out of the car there and then. The rest is in the report.
I have no idea what sentence was imposed, but I do not imagine that it would have been too severe. Two more thoughts arise; the lawyers' way of referring to significant cases is simply to use the defendant's name, so Burns is likely to join those of Turnbull and Aramah, and Povey and myriad others that are quoted day by day in our courts. It's immortality of a sort, but a sort that I could do without. Secondly, what reaction does he get when he walks into the Dog and Duck for a pint? And what did his missus think? perhaps she will buy him a torch for his birthday.