[etcetera]

"Leon Humphreys remained adamant yesterday that his right to fight a champion nominated by the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency (DVLA) was still valid under European human rights legislation."

Anyone know if this method of settling a legal dispute is still legal as he claims?

[dighton]

Anyone know if this method of settling a legal dispute is still legal as he claims?

I'll ping my distinguished panel of . . . . . . . . . . . . . . experts.

[proxy_user]

I believe trial by combat only applied to felonies, which this is obviously not.

[Martin Tell]

... still valid under European human rights legislation.

There is some precedent. Rich twins (Scotish publishers) who own an island under the control of the Baliwick of Guernsey challenged the Baliwick's application of (interestingly) medieval law to twart the twins' inheritence scheme. They argued that the European Convention on Human Rights trumped the Baliwick law. The Channel Islands are still legally part of the Duchy of Normandy, not the UK, and thus some medieval law still prevails. I think the twins won (of course the only reason they lived in the Baliwick was to avoid income tax). This case appears opposite - defendant is attmepting to use the Convention to invoke a medieval right. I give him about as much chance as a Montana Freeman invoking (non-existent) Common Law Courts.

[patronanejo]

In certain types of cases--apparently not restricted to felonies--trial by wager of law or by wager of battle was possible.

The latter was abolished in 1819 in Act to abolish Appeals of Murder, Treason, Felony or Other Offenses, and Wager of Battle, or joining Issue and Trial by Battle, in Writs of Right, 59 Geo. 3, ch. 46 § 2 (1819)(Eng.).

The former [which I imagine to be the adversarial paradigm of American legal practise] was abolished in 1833 in An Act for the further Amendment of the Law and the better Advancement of Justice, 3 & 4 Will. 4, ch. 42 § 13 (1833)(Eng.).