Alfred Denning citations

Alfred Thompson « Tom » Denning, baron Denning, né le 23 janvier 1899 et mort le 5 mars 1999, mieux connu sous le nom de lord Denning, est un avocat et juge britannique. Malgré des études interrompues par son service militaire durant la Première Guerre mondiale, il obtint des diplômes en mathématiques et en droit à l'université d'Oxford. Par la suite, il démarra une carrière juridique se distinguant aussi bien en tant que barrister qu'en tant que conseiller du Roi en 1938.

En 1944, Denning devient juge par sa nomination à la chambre de la famille de la Haute Cour de justice. Moins de cinq après sa nomination à la Haute Cour, il est fait Lord Justice of Appeal en 1948. En 1957, il est nommé en tant que Lord of Appeal in Ordinary et après cinq ans à la Chambre des lords, il retourne à la Cour d'appel comme Master of the Rolls en 1962, un poste qu'il occupera pendant vingt ans. Durant sa retraite, il signe plusieurs livres et continue de proposer son avis sur le statut de la common law par son écriture et sa position à la Chambre des lords.

Grâce à son rapport sur l'affaire Profumo, Denning fait partie des figures publiques les plus connues d'Angleterre. Il était hautement estimé par la plupart des membres de la magistrature et du barreau pour ses jugements audacieux allant à l'encontre de la loi. Juge durant 38 ans, il eut une forte influence sur la common law, particulièrement lorsqu'il était à la Cour d'appel. Même si plusieurs de ses décisions furent annulées par la Chambre des lords, nombre d'entre elles furent confirmées par le Parlement britannique, qui adopta des lois en lien direct avec ses jugements. Bien qu'apprécié pour son rôle de « juge du peuple » et son soutien à la personne, Denning était également controversée pour sa campagne contre la règle de common law du précédent, pour ses observations réalisées à l'égard des six de Birmingham et des Quatre de Guildford, et pour son conflit avec la Chambre des lords en tant que Master of the Rolls. Wikipedia  

✵ 23. janvier 1899 – 5. mars 1999
Alfred Denning photo
Alfred Denning: 27   citations 0   J'aime

Alfred Denning: Citations en anglais

“The statute in section 3(1) contains a definition of a “racial group”. It means a “group of persons defined by reference to colour, race, nationality or ethnic or national origins.” That definition is very carefully framed. Most interesting is that it does not include religion or politics or culture. You can discriminate for or against Roman Catholics as much as you like without being in breach of the law. You can discriminate for or against Communists as much as you please, without being in breach of the law. You can discriminate for or against the “hippies” as much as you like, without being in breach of the law. But you must not discriminate against a man because of his colour or of his race or of his nationality, or of “his ethnic or national origins.” … You must remember that it is perfectly lawful to discriminate against groups of people to whom you object - so long as they are not a racial group. You can discriminate against the Moonies or the Skinheads or any other group which you dislike or to which you take objection. No matter whether your objection to them is reasonable or unreasonable, you can discriminate against them - without being in breach of the law.’}}”

Denning judged in the Court of Appeal at the time, and held that Sikhs were not a racial or ethnic group. His ruling was overturned in the House of Lords, notably by Ian Fraser, Baron Fraser of Tullybelton, who outlined seven points by which ethno-religious groups were to be defined.
Judgments

“It happened on April 19, 1964. It was bluebell time in Kent.”

Hinz v. Berry [1970] 2 QB 40 at 42.
Judgments

“Mr Thornton was a freelance trumpeter of the highest quality.”

Thornton v Shoe Lane Parking Ltd [1971] 2QB 163; 1 All ER 686.
Judgments

“To some this may appear to be a small matter, but to Mr. Harry Hook, it is very important. He is a street trader in the Barnsley Market. He has been trading there for some six years without any complaint being made against him; but, nevertheless, he has now been banned from trading in the market for life. All because of a trifling incident. On Wednesday, October 16, 1974, the market was closed at 5:30. So were all the lavatories, or 'toilets' as they are now called. They were locked up. Three quarters of an hour later, at 6:20, Harry Hook had an urgent call of nature. He wanted to relieve himself. He went into a side street near the market and there made water, or 'urinated' as it is now said. No one was about except one or two employees of the council, who were cleaning up. They rebuked him. He said: 'I can do it here if I like'. They reported him to a security officer who came up. The security officer reprimanded Harry Hook. We are not told the words used by the security officer. I expect they were in language which street traders understand. Harry Hook made an appropriate reply. Again, we are not told the actual words, but it is not difficult to guess. I expect it was an emphatic version of 'You be off'. At any rate, the security officer described them as words of abuse. Touchstone would say that the security officer gave the 'reproof valiant' and Harry Hook gave the 'counter-check quarrelsome'; As You Like It, Act V, Scene IV. On Thursday morning the security officer reported the incident. The market manager thought it was a serious matter. So he saw Mr. Hook the next day, Friday, October 18. Mr. Hook admitted it and said he was sorry for what had happened. The market manager was not satisfied to leave it there. He reported the incident to the chairman of the amenity services committee of the Council. He says that the chairman agreed that 'staff should be protected from such abuse.”

That very day the market manager wrote a letter to Mr. Hook, banning him from trading in the market.
Ex Parte Hook [1976] 1 WLR 1052 at 1055.
Judgments

“In summertime village cricket is a delight to everyone. Nearly every village has its own cricket field where the young men play and the old men watch. In the village of Lintz in the County of Durham they have their own ground, where they have played these last 70 years. They tend it well. The wicket area is well rolled and mown. The outfield is kept short. It has a good clubhouse for the players and seats for the onlookers. The village team plays there on Saturdays and Sundays. They belong to a league, competing with the neighbouring villages. On other evenings they practice while the light lasts. Yet now after these 70 years a judge of the High Court has ordered that they must not play anymore. He has issued an injunction to stop them. He has done it at the instance of a newcomer who is no lover of cricket. This newcomer has built, or has had built for him, a house on the edge of the cricket ground which four years ago was a field where cattle grazed. The animals did not mind the cricket, but now this adjoining field has been turned into a housing estate. The newcomer bought one of the houses on the edge of the cricket field. No doubt the open space was a selling point. Now he complains that when a batsman hits a six the ball has been known to land in his garden or on or near his house. His wife has got so upset about it that they always go out at weekends. They do not go into the garden when cricket is being played. They say that this is intolerable. So they asked the judge to stop the cricket being played. And the judge, much against his will, has felt that he must order the cricket to be stopped: with the consequence, I suppose, that the Lintz Cricket Club will disappear. The cricket ground will be turned to some other use. I expect for houses or a factory. The young men will turn to other things instead of cricket. The whole village will be much poorer. And all this because of a newcomer who has just bought a house there next to the cricket ground.”

Miller v. Jackson [1977] QB 966 at 976.
Judgments

“Limitation is not a matter of justice. It is a rule of public policy which has its origin in history and its justification in convenience.”

The Bramley Moore [1964] P 200 at 220, commenting on the limitation of liability in maritime claims.
Judgments

“This is a case of a barmaid who was badly bitten by a big dog.”

Cummings v. Granger [1977] 1 All ER 104 at 106.
Judgments