Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • Extracts From Case Reports: R v. Brooks 1939 (CA)

    Uploaded by

    Najeehah Hamid
    19 views2 pages
    The Black Shirts Act 1938 made it an offense to wear a black shirt in a public assembly or march, with a maximum penalty of 5 years imprisonment. Over subsequent decades, several cases tested the boundaries of what constituted a "black shirt" under the act. In R v. Hawthorn 1958, the court found that a shirt with narrow white stripes was not entirely black and therefore not a black shirt. Later cases examined whether a shirt had to be visible, the location and context of its wearing, and the intentions and politics of the wearer. The act aimed to control the promotion of fascism but its enforcement through the courts became increasingly narrow in scope.

    Original Description:

    Original Title

    Fictitious Act and Legislation

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    The Black Shirts Act 1938 made it an offense to wear a black shirt in a public assembly or march, with a maximum penalty of 5 years imprisonment. Over subsequent decades, several cases tested the boundaries of what constituted a "black shirt" under the act. In R v. Hawthorn 1958, the court found that a shirt with narrow white stripes was not entirely black and therefore not a black shirt. Later cases examined whether a shirt had to be visible, the location and context of its wearing, and the intentions and politics of the wearer. The act aimed to control the promotion of fascism but its enforcement through the courts became increasingly narrow in scope.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as pdf or txt
    19 views2 pages

    Extracts From Case Reports: R v. Brooks 1939 (CA)

    Uploaded by

    Najeehah Hamid
    The Black Shirts Act 1938 made it an offense to wear a black shirt in a public assembly or march, with a maximum penalty of 5 years imprisonment. Over subsequent decades, several cases tested the boundaries of what constituted a "black shirt" under the act. In R v. Hawthorn 1958, the court found that a shirt with narrow white stripes was not entirely black and therefore not a black shirt. Later cases examined whether a shirt had to be visible, the location and context of its wearing, and the intentions and politics of the wearer. The act aimed to control the promotion of fascism but its enforcement through the courts became increasingly narrow in scope.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as pdf or txt
    of 2

    Black Shirts Act 1938

    (1938 c 80)

    An Act to regulate the display of fascist regalia.

    [30th April 1938]

    1. Any person who wears a black shirt in a public assembly or march shall be guilty of an
    offence and shall be liable to a term of imprisonment not exceeding five years.

    2. This Act may be cited as the Black Shirts Act 1938.

    Extracts from Case Reports

    R v. Brooks 1939 (CA)

    Per Dark LJ

    Fascism is a disease. Mr. Brooks was wearing a dark grey shirt at a national rally. As far as I
    am concerned, it is not the precise colour of the uniform that matters but the meaning of it.
    Light grey would be black if worn at a fascist rally or march by such as Mr. Brooks.

    Brooks lost his appeal against conviction.

    R v. Hawthorn 1958 (HL)

    (an equivalent case today would be in the Supreme Court)

    Per Lord Bleak

    Mr. Hawthorn was discovered to be wearing a black shirt with narrow white stripes. I do not
    care for arguments that he was attending a political meeting in uniform. His was not a black
    shirt. It ceases to be a black shirt when the shirt is not entirely black. The shirt is not black
    and his appeal should be allowed.

    Per Lord Gloom

    Mr. Hawthorn was in a private house, albeit at a political meeting and wearing a substantially
    black shirt. Much as I am inclined to find his behaviour loathsome, he is not guilty of the
    offence. However, had the meeting been open to any interested person, I would have
    dismissed the appeal.

    Per Lord Inky-Black

    I have read the speeches of Lord Gloom and Lord Bleak. I agree and respectfully adopt their
    arguments and conclusion and allow the appeal.

    Per Lord Stygian (in dissent)


    I have read the speech of Lord Bleak, but by reason that the Act is clearly intended to control
    the promotion of Fascism, I would dismiss the appeal.

    Per Lord Shady

    I have read the speech of Lord Gloom and I agree, although I must add that the drafting of the
    statute is unfortunate in that it places unnecessary restrictions on the commission of the
    offence.

    R v. Hunt 1976 (CA)

    Dull LJ

    Mr. Hunt is a contemptible political extremist. He has worn a casual black collarless linen
    shirt to his hateful meeting. I refer to the Lordships' Judgment in Hawthorn and agree with
    my colleagues that he is guilty.

    R v. Stewart 1990 (High Court Queen's Bench Division)

    Grimes J (as he then was)

    Mr. Stewart is not guilty of the offence. He is an upstanding member of society, and he was
    wearing the shirt by mistake. A man who is colour-blind cannot be imputed with knowledge
    that he has bought a black shirt when he thought it was purple.

    R v. Clark 1994 (CA)

    Grimes LJ

    Mr. Clark may be a fascist. We may find his politics upsetting. He may deserve the censure
    of any right-minded people today. But I am very much afraid that he was in a factory canteen,
    and that he was wearing a trenchcoat over a black roll-neck sweater. He was not in a public
    place, and his shirt was not visible. Even if it was visible, it was not a shirt. Had he not been
    in a meeting in the canteen, were he wearing no trenchcoat, or in a dark grey or black shirt, he
    would be guilty, and rightly so.

    You might also like