Clerk
Silence in Court! Mr Justice Stephen Knight-Hannah will now sum up in the case of Regina -v- Tyler, Deacon and Guard.

Judge
Members of the jury. The accused are charged with several serious offences. They include attempted murder, causing grievous bodily harm, assault, unlawful imprisonment, possession of offensive weapons, conspiracy, and incitement.
    You have listened patiently to the evidence. It is now my duty to sum up and to direct you on the law. It is for you to decide on the facts whether the offences specified in the indictment have been committed.
    The prosecution has alleged that Mr Innocent, having applied for membership of what he believed to be a private philanthropical and dining club was interviewed by the committee. Having been informed that he was acceptable as a member, he was then given appointment to attend on a later occasion.
    On arriving to keep that appointment he was immediately confined alone in a small room and warned not to leave it. Later, the defendant Tyler, who was armed with a sword, opened the door and took charge of him. Mr Innocent permitted himself to be blindfolded, or ‘hoodwinked’ as the accused would have it. You may feel, members of the jury, that despite his genial looks, Tyler is a forceful character and one not to be argued with. That of course is a matter for you.
    Mr Innocent’s clothing was apparently then disarranged. After certain preliminaries he heard a door open and the sound of people in a room. Naturally enough, as you may think, he stepped forward. He recollects hearing a voice enquiring whether he felt anything. He did indeed feel something. He felt a sharp pain in his chest, before suddenly being pulled backwards by the throat, and falling to the ground.
    Subsequently it was established that he had been stabbed in the chest with a stiletto, quaintly referred to as a ‘poignard’ by the accused, then pulled backwards by a rope, which has been referred to as a ‘cable tow’, and which was formed as a noose around his neck. He sustained further injuries while falling which were inflicted by the sword held by Tyler.
    What do the accused have to say in reply? First that there was no mens rea. There was no guilty intent in their minds. This whole matter was simply dismissed as an unfortunate accident in a ceremonial which had been performed for centuries. You will however remember the statement made by Guard. He claimed that he had simply stood firm and done his duty. Stabbing Mr Innocent was simply “doing his duty”. No guilty intent? But that of course is a matter for you. [R v Moloney (1985)]
    Secondly, the defence has argued that Mr Innocent had consented to take part in the ceremony. It was said that he was a free man and of full age. You will however remember that under cross examination it was admitted that those questions had not been put to him before he was regrettably and so grievously stabbed. As a matter of law, consent may be implied even when physical harm may result, for example in visiting the dentist, or when agreeing to surgery, or when taking part in boxing or other sports where physical contact or risk is involved. Consent must however be real. It must not be obtained by fraud or deceit. Can a blindfolded man give meaningful consent to matters going on around him of which he is deliberately kept in ignorance? That is what you are asked to believe. But that of course is also a matter for you. [Att-Gens Reference (No 6 of 1980) (1981)]
    Counsel for Deacon has contended that Deacon was not directly involved in the events which led to this trial. He was merely standing close by, an innocent bystander, and was no more party than anybody else in the room, or ‘lodge’ or ‘temple’, as it has been referred to. It has, however, never been denied that all were gathered for a common purpose. [R v Coney (1882)] It follows that if you find Tyler and Guard guilty, Deacon must also be convicted.
    Tyler’s defence to the charge of causing grievous bodily harm is that the injuries inflicted by his sword were caused accidentally when he unsuccessfully tried to catch Mr Innocent as he fell. You may feel this excuse to be thin, strained, weak, feeble, flimsy, barely credible, utterly pathetic. But that of course is entirely a matter for you.
    On the charge of being in possession of offensive weapons, Tyler does not deny being in possession of a sword. Guard likewise does not deny possession of the dagger which you have all seen. They claim, however, that these are not offensive weapons, but ritual objects. They are no more remarkable than the dirk worn as part of full Scottish Highland dress.
    Members of the jury, if that is true, you may well wonder whether it is permissible to possess a machine gun, a field piece, or an atomic bomb, provided it is used for ritual purposes only. If the sword or stiletto was carried openly in the street there can be no doubt that an offense would be committed. Whether this is excused by using them behind closed doors I leave to you.
    It was argued that the accused were not engaged in a criminal conspiracy but simply performing an ancient ritual. We have heard exhaustive analogies to Trooping of the Colour, the State Opening of Parliament and even to the law itself. We have heard about judges’ wigs and robes, about forms of address used in court, about the secrets and mysteries of conveyancing. It has actually been suggested that a great deal of the practice of law is ritual.
    I am sure I need not tell you that the law is quite different. The majesty of the law must never be confused with the activities of common people. One might say,

The fact that Judges wear wigs, tra la Has nothing to do with the case [See The Mikado - Gilbert and Sullivan]

The defence would have you believe that the events of which we have heard were conducted between men who were of full age, sound judgement and strictly moral in conduct. Men indeed much like yourselves, who might be called on to serve on a jury. It has even been suggested by the defence that members of the judiciary have taken part in these assemblies. You may believe that. I do not seek to influence your decision on the facts in any way, and would not for one moment wish to do so. You may, however, as reasonable men of the world think think the interpretation of events given by the witnesses is a tale to be told to the marines, a case, as you yourselves as ordinary men in the street might very well say of Credat Judaeus Apella non ego. [Horace]
    As sole judges of the facts it is entirely possible, entirely possible, that you may find the events and practices referred to in this case, and the defences offered, to be strange, remarkable, astonishing, unbelievable, bizarre, weird, incredible, unaccountable, mysterious, enigmatic, exotic, outlandish, fantastic, amazing, bewildering, surpassing belief, baffling, dumbfounding, flabbergasting, stupefying, unheard of, mind boggling, astounding, but, members of the jury, that is entirely a matter for you.
    You will now consider your verdict.

As recorded by Gerald Mendoza LGR LGCR, Lodge of Tranquility No 185 (LL.B Solicitor).