House of Lords
| DOI | 10.1177/002201836603000306 |
| Date | 01 July 1966 |
| Published date | 01 July 1966 |
| Subject Matter | Article |
House of Lords
AFFRAY: THE OLD LAW RESTORED
Button u. Director
of
Public Prosecutions
THE nature and ambit of
the
offence of affray has been
settled by this decision (1965, 3 W.L.R. 1131) which has
upheld
the
decision of
the
Court of Criminal Appeal the effect
of which has already been
the
subject of a comment in this
JOURNAL
(see 29 ].C.L. 179).
There
is no need to repeat
the
facts of
the
case.
There
is now
the
highest judicial authority
(Lord Gardiner, L.C., Lords Reid, Morris of Borth-y-Gest,
Pearce and Pearson) for stating
that
the offence cannot be
committed only in respect of acts done in a public place.
The
other members of the House agreed with
the
speech of
the
Lord Chancellor who said
that
the
only point on which he felt
some difficulty was whether
the
House should, after more
than
acentury, correct an error in a sense which widens a criminal
offence so as to remove a defence which aperson accused of
that
offence would in practice have had at any time during
the
last
100
years.
It
was argued
that
the
original condition of
the
law of
affray was too vague, unformed, and embryonic to justify
resuscitation and
that
one should therefore confirm and follow
the
mid-nineteenth and twentieth century view of it.
Lord
Gardiner, L.C. said:
"I
cannot accept the argument
that
its
earlier principles were vague and ill-defined.
From
the legal
writings to which I have referred it is shown
that
in
the
seventeenth century and even earlier there were clearly defined
and generally accepted principles of affray and
that
at least in
the
eighteenth century affray was an established indictable
offence".
It was further argued
that
no practical purpose is served
by re-establishing the law relating to affray, since it could only
lead to the multiplication and overlapping of charges. Where
194
To continue reading
Request your trial