Synopsis
A dubious collection of
entirely fictitious 'law reports' which are indistinguishable from the real thing.
The
twelve reported cases include
- Stingo v. Ingots - the leading case on the Anagrams Act 1992-in which the longstanding rule in R v Eltham Hamlet, ex parte Peatrex is fully explored
- Practice Direction No. 7 (Judicial Eating Habits) - which suggests a spurious menu for a legal banquet including such delights as Mock Court Soup, Red Herring, Duck the Issue, Raspberries Sotto Voce and Cracked Trial in a Crumbling Case.
Disclaimer: No responsibility is accepted by the publishers for misuse.The book contains an excellent review of its contents written before the book was published and which, so the reviewer claims, differs only in degree from '. . the practice whereby many books are reviewed without being read!'
Reviews
'One can truly say of this work - as for so few of its kind - that it is an essential addition to every lawyer's bookshelf...[the author's] clear message, amply reinforced by the authorities, is that the most fragile of arguments can be given unassailable credence by the timely use of the telling phrase...If your reviewer has a quibble, it is perhaps that the index actually works:...[I] had hoped for a really poor index.'
The Justices' Clerk
