Strange Laws Defence

[BagPussAA]

Has anyone ever used a strange (but still abiding) law and successfully argued their case or would more recent laws over rule it. The one I am thinking of is the law in York where it is legal to kill a Scotsman with a bow and arrow providing it is not within the city limits. Would you get away with saying that this killing was lawful or would the more recent murder laws still make it a crime.

[dot.hawkes]

but if it is legal to kill a scotsman in york as long as it is NOT within the city limits, then it isn;lt legal to kill a scotsman in york, or anywhere else is it?

[pink-kittens]

You have your law a little confused
It is legal to murder a Scotsman within the ancient city walls of York, but only if he is carrying a bow and arrow
I would think, even if you use your version that outside the city wall it would be illegal to murder someone by whatever method so, you're damned if you do and damned if you don't kinda thing

[silverlace]

I wouldnt try it if I were you. Something tells me you wouldnt get away with it. Patch up your differences and go for a drink instead.

[Gmcd01]

You would be proverbially laughed out of court. Surely the fact that you can't even recall the alleged 'defence' correctly should tell you something? Often, you might read those 99p pulp books that tell you the defence exists- but they'll never tell you the act it's contained in, or the case law that created it. Quite simply, because it's crap.
It's murder, plus you'd find yourself up against charges from the Offensive Weapons Act which killing the Scotsman couldn't help you with. Even if this defence does exist somewhere in the wild, it was outdated by Human Rights. There is NO chance the UK could successfully claim that killing a human in such circumstances is legitimate.

[fredpuli47]

Furthermore, you are likely to find that these quaint laws, if they existed in the form supposed, or at all, have already been abolished. From time to time Parliament passes an Act abolishing groups of these. Quite recently it got around to abolishing laws relating to the East India Company (on the doubtful grounds that the Company had ceased to exist over a hundred years ago) , laws relating to the management of workhouses, a law enabling householders to require a brass band to move from outside their house (penalty for refusal by the band, I think, ten shillings) and a delighful one which made it a specific offence to give a falsely favourable reference for a servant who had been in your employ.

[Barmaid]

Completely agree with gmcd and fredpuli. However, if you want a really creative defence, I recall a colleague of mine years ago defending a charge of attempting to enter a football stadium whilst drunk. Chap defended it on the basis he wasn't drunk; he was stoned..........

[fredpuli47]

Yes Barmaid, we get some good'uns. I had one burglar who said he had a defence to burgling no 22 because the house he'd burgled was No 24 not 22 and the police had got the wrong address. Well, yes, sort that one out....Could have been tricky for baby counsel ! The deps (witness statements) had it as 22.

[terambulan]

Giving a false reference, I understood, was contestable.