Cheeseman V. DPP 1990.
Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author.While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server.
Cheeseman indecently exposed himself in some public toilets. There had been complaints of him doing this previously. Therefore, officers were stationed at the site. As they were stationed there, they were not considered to be passers-by. As they were not considered as passers-by, he had not committed an offence. The courts used the literal rule and Cheeseman was found not guilty.
Section 28 of the Town & Country Planning Act 1847 provided an offence of 'wilfully and indecently exposing his person in a street to the annoyance of passengers'.
Literal rule:this rule respects parliamentary sovereignty. The judge takes the ordinary & natural meaning of the word, and applies it to the case, even if doing so creates an absurd result.
Therefore, Cheeseman wasn’t found guilty as the officers stationed there were not passers by, and therefore he did not commit an offence.