Cozens v Brutus
| Jurisdiction | UK Non-devolved |
| Judge | Lord Reid,Lord Morris of Borth-y-Gest,Viscount Dilhorne,Lord Diplock,Lord Kilbrandon |
| Judgment Date | 19 June 1972 |
| Judgment citation (vLex) | [1972] UKHL J0619-1 |
| Date | 19 June 1972 |
| Court | House of Lords |
-
- This document is available in original version only for vLex customers
View this document and try vLex for 7 days - TRY VLEX
- This document is available in original version only for vLex customers
371 cases
-
Wyre Forest District Council v Secretary of State for the Environment
... ... 518H–519B , 524A–C , 527A , 531E–F ) ... Cozens v. Brutus [ 1973 ] A.C. 854 , H.L.(E.) distinguished ... Per curiam. Any uncertainty which exists or could be claimed to exist as to the ... ...
-
Commissioners of Customs and Excise v McLean Homes Midland Ltd
...BVC 97 British Railways Board v C & E Commrs WLRVAT[1977] 1 WLR 588; (1977) 1 BVC 116 Buchler v Buchler ELR[1947] P 25 Cozens v Brutus ELR[1973] AC 854 C & E Commrs v Ali Baba Tex Ltd VAT[1992] BVC 93 Edwards (HMIT) v Bairstow & Anor ELR[1956] AC 14 Gray v Fidler [1943] KB 694 Harrington Co......
-
Clark (Inspector of Taxes) v Perks (No 2); MacLeod (Inspector of Taxes) v Same; Guild (Inspector of Taxes) v Newrick and Another
...of law (ibid p31, per Viscount Simonds). Other words are used in an ordinary sense which needs no judicial interpretation. Thus, in Cozens v Brutus [1973] AC 854, the expression "insulting….behaviour" (in the Public Order Act 1936 s5) was a pure jury question. As Lord Reid said (at p861): "......
-
R v Evans (Dorothy Gertrude)
...approached the question of the meaning of the phrase "abusive actions" in the present case? We consider that the answer is provided by Cozens v Brutus [1973] AC 854. The issue in that case was whether certain conduct of a person who attended a tennis match at Wimbledon was "insulting behavi......
Request a trial to view additional results
1 firm's commentaries
-
Section 5 Of The Public Order Act 1986: The Impact Of Harvey v DPP
...Whether words are threatening, abusive or insulting is a question of fact. Words are to be given their ordinary meaning: Brutus v Cozens [1973] AC 854, HL. As seen above in Southard, this is not purely an objective test. Questions of context and circumstance may affect a court's conclusion ......
16 books & journal articles
-
Sticks, Stones and Words: Emotional Harm and the English Criminal Law
...Law and Practice (BlackstonePress: London, 1997) 29.119 DPP v Selvanayagam, The Times (23 June 1999) (Collins J).120 Brutus v Cozens [1973] AC 854.121 Examples given by Addison and Lawson-Cruttenden (above n. 118 at 34–5)include parking a car every day outside a neighbour’s driveway as he i......
-
Any Excuse for Certainty: English Perspectives on the Defence of ‘Reasonable Excuse’
...only bethreatening, abusive or insulting). In terms of the interpretation of the meaning ofthese phrases, it was held in Brutus v Cozens [1973] AC 854 that these words wouldbe given their ordinary meaning and, as such, the issue of whether the words orbehaviour was threatening, abusive or i......
-
Subject Index
.................................. 281Brown v Stott [2001] 2 WLR 817.............................................. 38, 39, 41Brutus v Cozens [1973] AC 854................................................. 167, 169Burkitt v Broyles, 317 SW2d 762 (TexCiv App 1958) ......................................
-
Dishonest Appropriation after Gomez and Hinks
...taken in R v Feely [1973] QB 539,CA, but adding a second subjective test. The Court of Appeal was, in both cases,following Brutus vCozens [1973] AC 854 where the House of Lords held themeaning of ordinary words in legislation was a matter of fact for the jury unless thecontext made it clear......
Request a trial to view additional results