In honor of National Storytelling Festival October 5th
GOLDILOCKS COURT CASE
Supreme Court of Judicature (Forest Division), Regina vs Goldilocks. The defendant appeared on charges of criminal damage to a chair, theft of porridge, breaking and entering, and leaving the scene of a crime.
Following a defence submission that the breaking of the chair had occurred after the alleged entering of the premises, the words "but not necessarily in that order" were added to the charge sheet after the phrase "breaking and entering"
The prosecution alleged that Miss Locks did effect illegal entry of a property owned by Mr & Mrs Bear while the owners were absent, and did illicitly consume a bowl of porridge, the property of Baby Bear, and did also destroy his chair, sleep in his bed and flee out of the window when accosted by the owners of the house.
In a counter claim for damages, Miss Locks produced medical evidence that she had burnt her lips on Daddy Bear's porridge, had injured her back while falling from Baby Bear's chair and was still suffering from shock having been woken from a deep sleep by a group of vicious-looking bears. She maintained that by leaving the door open to their house, the Bears were issuing a prima facie invitation to enter. Mr Hiller Beanz, defending, drew the court's attention to Regina vs Santa Claus in which the defendant had been aquitted on a similar charge on the grounds that mince pies and sherry constituted a de post facto invitation.
Merkin Threadbare QC, prosecuting, maintained that Regina vs Santa Claus did not apply in this case as porridge is neither mince pies nor sherry. Miss Locks had no reason to believe, on entering the premises, that a retroactive invitation would materialise, whereas Mr Claus had good reason by virtue of precedent to expect that the pies and sherry would be there. The defence argued that Miss Locks may have entered the premises expecting pies and sherry. The fact that the invitation comprised porridge did not affect her right of entry.
When called to give evidence, Mr Bear denied liability for Miss Locks' injuries and said he had not behaved in an aggressive and threatening manner towards her. He had been surprised to see her lying in his son's bed but, to the best of his memory, his only words to her had been to ask who had been eating his porridge, sitting in his chair and sleeping in his bed. When asked whether he considered he had a rough, gruff voice, Mr Bear said that was for the court to judge.
Miss Locks was asked why, when first interviewed by the forest police, she denied all knowledge of the Bears' cottage and of all the incidents under investigation. She maintained that this was further evidence of the post-traumatic stress she was suffering. Her memory, she said, was jogged by the DNA tests on a porridge spoon and a strand of golden hair. Miss Locks was remanded for psychiatric reports and a restraining order was issued banning her from approaching with half a league of the Bears' cottage.
This report was brought to you by Craft, the Campaign for Realism in Arboreal Fairy Tales
|
