The Supreme Court has today confirmed there is no legal loophole that allows an armed robber to say ‘trick or treat,’ and become immune to prosecution.
In a case brought against armed robber Simon Williams last year, the Defence argued that armed robbery is simply a variant on the traditional children’s game whereby providing a large sum of money or ‘treat’ would preclude being shot in the face, or the ‘trick.’
The Supreme Court ruled that no amount of dressing it up as a harmless bit of Halloween fun could diminish the illegality of violent robbery.
Legal experts have expressed their displeasure at the ruling.
“On face value, it seems fine,” said Lord B.V. F. Stein QC, a barrister who specialises in spooky law.
“But the judgement dreadfully unclear. What if the defendant had really made an effort with his costume, and not just cut some holes in a sheet as a ghost?”
“What if the alleged victim had initially offered a disappointing treat? What if the defendant had seen the alleged victim with a pumpkin and assumed they welcomed trick or treaters?”
“None of this is covered.”
The Supreme Court will now move onto deciding whether kidnapping can be excused by saying ‘Penny for the guy’.