This ruling of Lord Denning’s judgement purports to grant authority to the police to decide which crimes they investigate and which they do not on the grounds of difficulty of solving the case, and the cost incurred. I am loath to take exception to such a venerable judge as Denning but in this case I must because his judgement clearly flies in the face of the law as it is written.

1. This ruling that the police can decide which crimes to investigate and which not to investigate purports to grant a dispensation from the penalty for that crime for its perpetrator. As already stated above, this is in direct contravention of the 1689 Bill of Rights. A major Constitutional Law so major that it laid down the inheritance of the Crown.

2. Chief Justice Vaughn of the Common Pleas in the case of Thomas vs. Sorrel 1674 clarified the King’s authority under the law to grant a dispensation for a penalty for a crime. Vaughn stated that the King cannot grant a dispensation from the penalty for a common law crime. The King can grant a dispensation for a crime against statute law, but he cannot grant a dispensation against a penalty for all statute offences. If the King is the only victim of the crime he can grant a dispensation against the penalty for that crime, but if a third party is a victim then the King cannot grant a dispensation for the penalty for that crime as that would take away the third party’s right to sue for damages in a court of law. Vaughn went on to give an illustration by saying that the King cannot grant a dispensation for a man who has a bridge on his land not to maintain that bridge, as that would remove the right of anyone injured as a result of the bridge’s lack of repair, to sue for damages.

3. As Chief Justice of the Common Pleas Vaughn is higher in the judicial hierarchy (a higher court) than Denning and as such Denning is bound by Vaughn’s ruling and as such, Denning’s ruling is void and of no effect.

Click here for a detailed  rebuttal of the police legal argument