It's nice to know that head-scratching judicial decisions aren't limited to this country. Consider this tale from the UK. A teen-age girl was charged with assault and put on bond. After violating a term of that bond, the prosecution requested that she be fitted with an electronic monitoring ankle bracelet (or "tag," as the Brits call it). Defense counsel argued against the anklet, on the grounds that it clashed with the girl's sense of fashion:
But David Taylor, defending, said that would interfere with her dress sense. He said: 'Unlike some young men who wear a tag as a badge of honour, this young woman dresses in a feminine way. She wants to wear skirts, not trousers, which would cover the tag.'The magistrate bought that argument and did not impose the condition requested by the prosecution. As expected, the ruling has produced outrage (if not anarchy) in the UK. But, when you look at what the "violation" actually was, it seems like a whole lot of sound and fury signifying nothing:
She appeared in court on Tuesday and admitted breaching the terms of her bail curfew, which states that she must answer her front door to police whenever they call.
Magistrates heard that Hughes, of Worcester, did not answer the door at 2.35am and claimed she was asleep at the time.
[Taylor] said Hughes lived in a shared house with her bedroom at the back of the property and had not heard the doorbell.
Sounds like a reasonable argument to me.