The court will require determining the legality of David’s actions in the same framework. Frist, the prosecution will hold that the accused assembled six hundred people, which was more than the stipulated maximum of one hundred. Another fact is that the actions of David’s visitors could be termed as barbaric because of infringing on the rights of neighbors. In this line, there is a need to consider that the constitution guarantees people a right to their freedom of assembly. However, under the common law and its statues, an assembly beyond certain set limits and defines that such assemblies are illegal is they are on basis of illegal purposes and if they will breach the peach of the community.
In this case, if such holds, then the accused will be liable to riot. The defendant will hold that a need consider that in a case like this one, the piece of legislation is only particular on assembly with the likelihood of drinking alcohol exists. Under the same condition, infringement of any type on the rights of others such as the neighbors in the case of David vs Neighbors is not provided for by the same law.
In this case, David and his defense should hold on the loopholes of the law. First, the law fails to pin down other unlawful actions of an assembly of more than 100 people expect for the intention or and likelihood to consume alcohol. In this case, it is not clear as such if David and his friends assembled with the intention of drinking alcohol. The only clear fact from the case is that they gathered for his birthday.
Secondly, a consideration is on the fact that the law does not provide for the limitation on the infringement of the others’ rights and freedoms. It means that the neighbors do not have a legal ground under the same law to sue the defendant. The law demands responsibility on the defendant to ensure that the people gathered are not more than 100 and are not consuming alcohol, which the complainants ought to testify. A consideration for section 1 (2) of the same piece of legislation, which stipulates that Subject to Section 1 (3) it is consolidating such gatherings without guarantee from local magistrate is crime lest the planner is an exempt person.
There is a need to consider the exempt parties as provided by the same legislation, which is liable to section 1 (3). The later section of the law provides for any of their family members, an employee or an
Please type your essay title, choose your document type, enter your email and we send you essay samples