Davis v Lisle

JurisdictionEngland & Wales
Year1936
Date1936
CourtKing's Bench Division

Get this document and AI-powered insights with a free trial of vLex and Vincent AI

Get Started for Free

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex
51 cases
  • R v Thornley
    • United Kingdom
    • Court of Appeal (Criminal Division)
    • 28 November 1980
    ...proposition, which I confess sounds remarkable, is based as I understand it on the last sentence but one in the judgment of Goddard J. in Davis v. Lisle. Goddard J. said: 'He had no right to be on the premises once he had been asked to leave.'In my judgment it is quite wrong to read those w......
  • Pamplin v Fraser
    • United Kingdom
    • Divisional Court
    • Invalid date
  • Donnelly v Jackman
    • United Kingdom
    • Divisional Court
    • Invalid date
    ...and Rice v. Connolly [1966] 2 Q.B. 414; [1966] 3 W.L.R. 17; [1966] 2 All E.R. 649, D.C. applied. Davis v. Lisle [1936] 2 K.B. 434; [1936] 2 All E.R. 213, D.C. and Kenlin v. Gardiner [1967] 2 Q.B. 510; [1967] 2 W.L.R. 129; [1966] 3 All E.R. 931, D.C. The following cases are referred to in th......
  • Lambert v Roberts
    • United Kingdom
    • Divisional Court
    • Invalid date
  • Get Started for Free
4 books & journal articles
  • Whither Section 89(1) of the Police Act 1996?
    • United Kingdom
    • Sage Journal of Criminal Law, The No. 83-2, April 2019
    • 1 April 2019
    ...duty thus making a s. 89(1) offence capable of being committed againstthem: see Sobczak v DPP [2012] EWHC 1319 (Admin).25. Davis v Lisle [1936] 2 KB 434.26. These are set out in s. 2(2) and (3) of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 (PACE). They include the requirement tostate the pur......
  • Police Powers in the West Indies: Some Constitutional Aspects
    • Barbados
    • Caribbean Law Review No. 1-2, December 1991
    • 1 December 1991
    ...justices of the peace in Barbados are indeed permitted to issue search warrants and warrants of arrest, but subject to conditions 63[1936] 2 K.B. 434. 64 (1765) 19 State Tr. 1030; 95 E.R. 807. 65 [1968] 2 Q.B. 299. 66 [1978] 1 Q.B. 490. 67The general power is now conferred on justices of th......
  • Recent Judicial Decisions
    • United Kingdom
    • Sage Police Journal: Theory, Practice and Principles No. 56-1, January 1983
    • 1 January 1983
    ...ruled not to be helpful. The DivisionalCourtfinally referred to the two well known police trespass cases,Davis v. Lisle [1936] 2 K.B. 434 and R. v. Waterfield [1964] I Q.B.164.In conclusion theCourtdecidedthatit would have been possiblefor the car to have been properly seized if the driver ......
  • Courts of Summary Jurisdiction
    • United Kingdom
    • Sage Journal of Criminal Law, The No. 10-4, October 1946
    • 1 October 1946
    ...was all right (and sustainedinjuryin so doing),buthe was heldnotto be acting intheexecution of his duty. Again, in Davis v. Lisle (1936)2K.B.434, which was an appeal by casestatedfromtheCounty of London Sessions,itwas heldthattwo policeofficers werenotacting intheexecution oftheirdutywhenaf......