Cheeseman V. DPP 1990
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.