Trial by combat

[snopes]

Comment: Is this true?

Magistrates have rejected a 60-year-old motorcyclist’s attempt to avoid a £25 motoring fine by invoking the right of trial by combat. Leon Humphreys, of Bury St Edmunds, wanted the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency to nominate a champion to fight him to the death after he was fined for refusing to notify the agency that his motorcycle was off the road. “It is a reasonable enough way of sorting the matter out,” he said. “I am reasonably fit for my age and I am not afraid of taking anyone on if they want to fight.” He was fined £200 for refusing to pay the fine.

[Eddylizard]

The story seems to have originated in The Telegraph in late 2002 http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukne...by-combat.html

It's the sort of thing I can see someone doing to try and mock the court system as a protest against their having gotten caught doing something illegal, like the people who try to pay their fines in 1p pieces, but that doesn't mean it actually happened.

[Troberg]

Well, if he manages to dig up some old law giving him the right to trial bt combat, then, by all means, he should have it. Afterwards, I suspect that law will be changed.

If not, pay up.

[Stoneage Dinosaur]

As the DVLA is an organisation of Her Majesty's Govenment, does this mean that he was effectively challenging the Queen to a fight to the death?

[effo5231]

Troberg, do you mean to suggest that if there is in fact some forgotten line in some forgotten book that technically still qualifies as law (a concept that is probably not really possible, but let's pretend it is).... anyway, do you mean to suggest that this guy should have the right to try and kill someone to avoid paying a traffic fine? Please tell me that was sarcasm and I missed it.

Serious note, what happens in the event that someone pulls on of these musty old laws off the books? (Like this legend or the Simpson's episode where Homer becomes a beer baron.) Is there a legal means of preventing Troberg's scenario from happening if there is in fact a forgotten tome guaranteeing the right to trial by combat?

[Mycroft]

Originally Posted by effo5231

Serious note, what happens in the event that someone pulls on of these musty old laws off the books? (Like this legend or the Simpson's episode where Homer becomes a beer baron.) Is there a legal means of preventing Troberg's scenario from happening if there is in fact a forgotten tome guaranteeing the right to trial by combat?

If he did raise it in court in the first instance the judge would reject the argument. He could then in theory appeal it (again it would be rejected) in various higher level of courts (appeals courts, House of Lords, European Court of Human Rights). Unless there were specific laws enacted in the past rescinding the law he discovered (although it is unlikely that a particular specific law (If you steal from Covent Garden Market you shall be suspended from London Bridge until 10 tides have passed [not a real law] )) it is almost certain that general laws passed since then will cover the case. In the case where a specific ruling has to be made, then further laws will have to enacted later as a court ruling is not sufficient to change (or even clarify) a law, as it is case specific (but can be used to argue a precedent in similar cases)

[Troberg]

Originally Posted by effo5231

Troberg, do you mean to suggest that if there is in fact some forgotten line in some forgotten book that technically still qualifies as law (a concept that is probably not really possible, but let's pretend it is).... anyway, do you mean to suggest that this guy should have the right to try and kill someone to avoid paying a traffic fine? Please tell me that was sarcasm and I missed it.

If, by some odd legal mishap, the law gives him that right, then, yes, he is entitled to it. Hopefully, it won't have to be a fight to the death, though. Wrestling of boxing would be enough.

Originally Posted by effo5231

Serious note, what happens in the event that someone pulls on of these musty old laws off the books? (Like this legend or the Simpson's episode where Homer becomes a beer baron.) Is there a legal means of preventing Troberg's scenario from happening if there is in fact a forgotten tome guaranteeing the right to trial by combat?

I doubt there is any way to stop it, the only thing they can do is to stop it from happening another time.

After all, when is a law outdated? 10 years? 50 years? 100 years? 500 years? Some very old laws are still in effect, and for good reason. Allowing the courts to just ignore them because they are old sets a very dangerous precedent.

[DemonWolf]

Originally Posted by effo5231

Troberg, do you mean to suggest that if there is in fact some forgotten line in some forgotten book that technically still qualifies as law (a concept that is probably not really possible, but let's pretend it is).... anyway, do you mean to suggest that this guy should have the right to try and kill someone to avoid paying a traffic fine? Please tell me that was sarcasm and I missed it.

Serious note, what happens in the event that someone pulls on of these musty old laws off the books? (Like this legend or the Simpson's episode where Homer becomes a beer baron.) Is there a legal means of preventing Troberg's scenario from happening if there is in fact a forgotten tome guaranteeing the right to trial by combat?

If it is a valid law with no other legislation making it obsolete, I would think that the court has no choice but to carry it out. However, I would think that "trial by combat" would not be valid because it would deny him a trial of a jury of his peers.

[Andrew of Ware]

I doubt if the law of 'trial by combat' is still on the statute book. A lot of obsolete laws have been repealed - although a lot only went in 1999. If the law is still on the statute book then Her Majesty still has a champion who could fight the gentleman in question. Since the days of Richard II (reigned 1377 to 1399) a member of the Dymoke family has held this honour. Nowadays, the role is purely ceremonial - for example he carries the Royal Standard at coronations.

See here, for example.

ETA: This Wikipededia page says that the law of 'trial by combat' was repealed by parliament in 1819.

[effo5231]

Originally Posted by Troberg

If, by some odd legal mishap, the law gives him that right, then, yes, he is entitled to it. Hopefully, it won't have to be a fight to the death, though. Wrestling of boxing would be enough.

But this guy specifically requested a fight to the death. My question is would you support a person's right to kill another human being as an acceptable means of not paying a traffic ticket?

[CannonFodder]

I think we should have more trial by combat. Maybe instead of civil suits? What about combat by proxy using giant combat robots? Instead of studying law, studying robotic and mechanical engineering could be a very valuable career field.

[Troberg]

Originally Posted by effo5231

My question is would you support a person's right to kill another human being as an acceptable means of not paying a traffic ticket?

Assuming that was the law, then, yes. However, I find that a very unlikely scenario.

As I said, if the legal system starts randomly ignoring laws because they are "silly", "inconvenient" or "old", it will be a really dangerous path to go down. However, once such laws are found, they should be changed, but the cases based on them needs to be played out first.

[Silas Sparkhammer]

Originally Posted by Troberg

. . . if the legal system starts randomly ignoring laws because they are "silly", "inconvenient" or "old", it will be a really dangerous path to go down. . . .

Possibly true, but the other extreme, excessive literalness -- hyper-legalism -- is also dangerous. e.g. ticketing people for driving even 1mph over the speed limit, mandatory inspection of tire wear, etc. The U.S. is famous for its absurd collection of state and local "blue laws," and the strict enforcement of these would be catastrophic.

Another note; sometimes, laws aren't repealed, but merely overridden by subsequent developments. Where I live, there are still legal codes on the books that would prevent non-white people from buying houses in certain parts of the city, under 1920's codes. These are not in force, because the 14th Amendment is considered to overrule them. A hyper-strict obedience to the law would require these archaic laws to be obeyed and then taken to court to be overruled -- in each and every single case! The court system would be overwhelmed.

Silas

[DesertRat]

Come on, Silas... never let common sense get in the way of of an entertaining world view.

[snopes]

Originally Posted by Troberg

As I said, if the legal system starts randomly ignoring laws because they are "silly", "inconvenient" or "old", it will be a really dangerous path to go down.

Unless judges starting using Oujia boards or coin-flipping as the basis for their decisions, there is nothing "random" about it.

[Troberg]

Originally Posted by Silas Sparkhammer

Possibly true, but the other extreme, excessive literalness -- hyper-legalism -- is also dangerous. e.g. ticketing people for driving even 1mph over the speed limit, mandatory inspection of tire wear, etc. The U.S. is famous for its absurd collection of state and local "blue laws," and the strict enforcement of these would be catastrophic.

I agree. The legal machinery is like any other machinery, it needs maintenance and parts needs to be replaced, or it will malfunction. And just like a machine, you don't start replacing parts while it's running.

It's a matter of being prepared and constantly weed out atavistic laws before they become a problem.

Then again, I'm from the other big legal tradition, civil law. Generally, it gives judges much less room for own initiative, they are much more bound by the letter of the law. For instance, punishments like seen in some news here on snopes, like carrying a sign detailing the crime or similar "creative" punishments are not possible. The law stipulates exactly what the punishment should be, and the circumstances which may modify it. Unless, of course, like judge Tomas Norström, the judge is for sale...

Originally Posted by snopes

Unless judges starting using Oujia boards or coin-flipping as the basis for their decisions, there is nothing "random" about it.

Not random as in "roll a die", but random as in "unpredictable" or "outside the system". As the citizen can't know for sure which laws applies, it might as well be random.