THE COURT’S DECISION.

Sir Robert said that he had hesitated until he had consulted all the members of the Bench as to their views on this matter, because many of them were anxious, having regard to the importance of the case, that appellant should have an opportunity for himself of stating in court his view of what took place. But the Court were of opinion that there was no case made out, and so he (the chairman) had felt it necessary to intervene. He wanted to say one or two words in connection with the case. There had been a great deal of misapprehension in regard to the nature of that charge. Let it be understood that the particular section order under which these proceedings were taken involved no charge of indecency whatever. He wanted especially to emphasise that. A misapprehension had existed in regard to it, and it was right that that should be understood. Sir Edward quite properly called attention to the general regulations of the park, and then he called attention to the particular regulation under which these proceedings had been brought – that was to say, “wilfully interfering,” as the section put it, “to annoy.” The conviction was for wilfully annoying. When the charge was made under that particular regulation of annoying, it did mean, and should be clearly understood to mean, not that the conduct which the constables saw was such which, in their opinion, ought to annoy, but it was that the person who was there was annoyed in fact. One of the magistrates had publicly stated in court that in certain cases under these regulations he was not prepared to convict anyone unless the person who was annoyed was a party to the proceedings. He (Sir Robert) held that unless some person had made a complaint and that there was proof of annoyance a conviction under that section ought to be impossible. The police were in a most difficult position in regard to these cases. “It is not that we disbelieve the evidence the police have given,” continued Six Robert, “that we arrive at this finding, because the bulk of the facts are really in one respect not in dispute. I think it has been shown that Sir Almeric did speak to certain persons.”

Sir Henry Curtis Bennett: To one woman.

Sir Robert: It is not yet the law of this country – I don’t know what we may come to – that one person may not speak to another unless they have been formally introduced. (Laughter.) I go further, and say even a man may speak to a woman without being charged with an offence or it being necessarily assumed that the woman is annoyed. With regard to the offence in this case no one has been called to say they have themselves been annoyed. The only person as we know now who it was alleged was annoyed is the person the police magistrate said he would not believe. Sir Robert went on to say that upon hearing the evidence the police had given, and he did not suggest for a moment they had had invented anything, he did not understand from the position in which the parties stood how they were to say that a person was annoyed. Whether they were annoyed or not he did not know. He was not going to say whether the type of person who frequented Hyde Park at that time of the evening was easily annoyed on being spoken to. There is no charge against the police except that in discharging an important and difficult duty they drew an inference which the Court is not disposed to draw and does not draw. That being so, the conviction is quashed and the appeal allowed.”