←
→
maelorin: (transmetro)
Add MemoryShare This Entry

reasonable person?

posted by [personal profile] maelorin at 12:17pm on 03/04/2006 under ,
Andrew Bartlett's recent post in his blog concerning recent changes to the Aviation Transport Safety Regulations prompted me to comment thus:

The ‘reasonable person’ has just become even more unreasonable.

Our legal system has developed the term ‘reasonable person’ as a term of art over some hundreds of years. It’s not easy to find a clear definition, but it used to be pretty obvious what it meant after you read a couple of quotes.

As a lawyer, I’ll be expected to explain how this law makes any sense to people who have been dragged into court by it. The ease with which these kinds of changes to our laws can be made is more terrifying than the supposed threat they address.

‘Ignorance is no excuse’ is now a very unreasonable part of our ever more terrified body of laws. Laws we’re supposed to not only make ourselves aware of, but take seriously.

Go read his post.
Mood:: 'irritated' irritated
←
→
There are 4 comments on this entry. (Reply.)
 

(no subject)

posted by [identity profile] verdigriis.livejournal.com at 12:28am on 04/04/2006
Soooo. It's now a crime to accidentally leave your luggage unattended? WTF? No one does that deliberately, and it must happen all the time. As for jokes about bombs - I do that. It may be offensive, but should it be an offense? Gah! I see what you mean about the "reasonable person". Apparently the "reasonable person" is a paranoid nutball who can't take a joke or recognise sarcasm...
[link] [reply]
maelorin: (Default)

(no subject)

posted by [personal profile] maelorin at 10:54am on 04/04/2006
my point exactly.


sometimes i despair.

then i realise that takes too much effort. besides, it's the nutjobs' own faults.

i just have to live here amongst them, 'tis all.
[link] [parent] [reply]
 

(no subject)

posted by [identity profile] reverancepavane.livejournal.com at 05:56am on 05/04/2006
I always thought that a "reasonable person" was effectively defined as the jury deciding the case. After all, they are twelve (or four) "reasonable people.
[link] [reply]
maelorin: (eye)

reasonable <strike>man</strike> person

posted by [personal profile] maelorin at 06:42am on 05/04/2006
no, the "reasonable person" is a term of art at common law. the reasonable person is mindful of their fellow man, but not especially so. he/she considers the likely consequences of their actions before acting. but they are not perfect, nor omniscient.

the classic statement of the "reasonable man" is lord denning's "man on the clapham omnibus".

a jury is comprised of "peers", who may or may not be reasonable, but are by definition "ordinary people" (in the sense of "normal"). certain classes of people are excused from serving on juries because of their occupations - either because they are important to the well-being of the community (eg ambulance people) or a possible conflict of interest (eg practicing lawyers).

"reasonable person" will not be defined for the jury since it is assumed that they can determine that for themselves, and put themselves in the shoes of the "reasonable person".

unfortunately, parliaments have felt the need to intervene - like this - and direct us as to what this "reasonable person" is like. increasingly they're paranoid, indecisive and need help from nanny to cross the road.
[link] [parent] [reply]

May

SunMonTueWedThuFriSat
          1
 
 2
 
3
 
 4
1
 5
 
 6
 
 7
 
 8
 
 9
 
10
 
 11
 
 12
 
 13
 
 14
 
 15
 
 16
 
17
 
 18
 
 19
 
 20
 
 21
 
 22
 
 23
 
24
 
 25
 
 26
 
 27
 
 28
 
 29
 
 30
 
31