Talk:Fisher v Bell

The claimant

While reviewing some foundational cases my focus turned to fisher v. bell. i rose the question to my teacher and he refocused to find the answer myself. My question is in the case who is fisher. Shouldn’t it have been something like R v. bell? The police saw the knife and know the law aggressed bell. So who is fisher... this was not a civil case, was it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ayana1 (talk • contribs)

I came here trying to find an answer to the same question. The article says that Fisher was a chief inspector in the Bristol police, but still, why wasn't it R v. Bell? I might ask on the Reference Desk if nobody comes along here in a few days and sheds some light on the matter. Marnanel 17:20, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bell was the accused/defendant. Prior to the enactment of the Prosecution of Offences Act 1985 it was the police who prosecuted in the lower courts Ron Barker (talk) 14:11, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is CRIMINAL law case frequently used to illustrate the literal rule of statutory interpretation

Bell was charged with offering for sale a flick knife, contrary to s. 1 (1) of the Restriction of Offensive Weapons Act, 1959. In determining the meaning of 'offering for sale', the court drew on contract law, according to which displaying the knife in the window did not amount to an offer but was merely an invitation to treat. Previous posts have also dealt with other aspects of this being a criminal case, not contract as it says in the article. Re literal rule of statutory interpretation: While this is often cited as an example, it is actually a rather odd case to take as exemplifying the literal rule, which is associated with the plain ordinary meanings of words -- whereas the meaning of 'offer' adopted here is very much a lawyer's meaning. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MirandaEscobedo (talk • contribs) 10:12, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]