I clicked over this article in the Case Law Digest section of the Daily Mirror [Note: don’t worry, there is no case law digest section in the Daily Mirror. I was being sarcastic] and had to share. I think it is a case which will be taught and referred to in law colleges throughout the land such is the brilliance of the defence stratagem deployed in it.
It is a report of a man who was eventually found [SPOILER] not guilty of performing a solo intimate act upon himself in a train carriage in front of a female commuter.
The Prosecution submitted that a blonde [it is the Daily Mirror after all so these details are absolutely vital to get accurate] commuter’s attention was drawn to the accused who was, at the time sitting on seating opposite on the train, when she witnessed the newspaper on the lap of the accused “jumping up and down” and swiftly concluded that the accused had placed his hands under it to do, let’s say, the Devil’s handiwork.
The defence though, and this is what law students will be learning for generations to come, pulled out a masterstroke of a counter.
The defence lawyer submitted that the accused, contrary to the accusation, was doing no such dirty thing but was, in fact, innocently – and who here hasn’t –“strumming a pretend banjo” under the newspaper. A pretend, as in, not actually there, banjo. A banjo of figment.
Not unreasonably, one of his hands was down his trousers at the time – he was innocently adjusting his briefs to relieve a discomfort in his groin whilst simultaneously doing the aforementioned strumming of said “pretend banjo”.
And as for the heavy breathing which accompanied these perfectly innocent joint activities – this was simply due to an innocent lung infection at the time, which has now, happily cleared up.
So, you see, it was all just an innocent set of unfortunate co-incidences which can be naturally explained away.
We’ll all look back and laugh about this gross misunderstanding of events later, you know, M’Lord.
What! I mean, really, properly, WHAT?!?! That was the defence? It’s worth typing again: WHAT?!?!
Was the accused some sort of real life Mr. Bean? His days filled with increasing mishaps of hilarity building upon each other - the inexorable path from his morning commute air banjo incident until head butting of the Queen with an ill-judged bow while his middle finger is wedged out his trouser zipper affecting a penis, before bedtime? Whilst the trial was ongoing did he find himself wiping his hands on the judges’ robes in the bathroom and manhandling the boob of the court transcriber due to innocently groping out to find a door handle all because he put eye drops in his eyes at recess and his vision was blurred?
If the prosecution didn’t follow up the euphemistic “strumming a pretend banjo” declaration with a quick fire cross-examination asking with equal inferred euphemism if he was sure he wasn’t boasting and it wasn’t more truthfully a ukulele instead then, frankly, the prosecution lawyer should be done for contempt.
Anyway, incredibly, this case then spirals into complete farce.
The jury – yes there are other ordinary people being subjected to this protracted lunacy – are then given a live re-enactment of the air banjo / pants adjusting / heavy breathing combo of innocence by the accused to show how easily the act could be misconstrued as pleasuring oneself in the direction of a woman (who is probably one of those bloody troublesome feminists you sometimes get on a train, am I wrong?).
I would dearly, dearly have loved it if the accused gent had purposely positioned the basic wooden chair after carefully taking time to assess the jury in order to sit opposite the hottest female in it. Sadly such details are not disclosed in the report.
The prosecution, in summing up, concedes that the accused does play a banjo but stated that no one sits on a train adjusting their underwear, and basically, this whole explanation and defence is – to coin a legalese phrase – altogether mental.
It is at this point the judge, who also has a crazy name, Judge Recorder Jeremy Donne, intervenes. He orders the prosecution's comments be struck from the records and for the jury to completely ignore them.
You see, Judge Recorder remembered watching a documentary once that demonstrated men are prone to commonly placing their hands to rummage about their nethers in public. “The TV show made that very point. They had a series of films of men walking down the street and fiddling with themselves," said the judge. Just what sort of documentary was this? “Men may be rude to reorganise themselves in the presence of women but in some cases it can reveal the early signs of prostate cancer.”
Astonishing. Has Judge Recorder just set a legal precedent for men to touch themselves in front of women on the basis that it is for the good of their health? Did anyone check he isn’t a nightclub DJ?
The climax of this case is, of course, importantly the accused was found not guilty by majority verdict. This outcome should not be taken lightly. Honestly, bravo Mr Defence Lawyer – that is a sublime bit of lawyering to convince the Jury. Particularly so, because, come on! He obviously was at it. At least some of the jury thought it. The argument should have the lawyer’s name attached to it and in years to come when prosecutor’s hear the opening gambit: “Tell me, do you play any instruments at all?” they will turn to one another and talk in hushed, worried tones about the Banjo Defence as if it is the opening move of an ancient grandmaster at Chess.
 |
| Bringing a whole new meaning to being arrested for lute-ing |
But what will it all mean for the man on street? What is the upshot?
I can see it now: Men all over the land claiming to be riffing on pretend Fender guitars in coffee houses, air fluting in public WC’s and Cello miming at bus shelters. “I don’t like what you are insinuating. If the young lady doesn’t want to be looked at by a single guy sitting on a park bench practicing for the concert by shaking a non-existent tambourine down his chinos, then, officer, that is her prerogative. If she thinks I am doing something more sinister, personally I think she’s a bit pervy.”
All things considered, this may be the most ridiculous proven defence, well, pretty much ever.
In the words of Lionel Hutz: “Case Closed”.
No comments:
Post a Comment