ABSTRACT Struggles for justice are commonly articulated in literature and drama through metaphors of physical encumbrance (of being cramped, constrained, entangled and mired) and escape (to open landscapes and a view of the horizon and sky). What is less well known or observed is that this metaphorical opposition of encumbrance/escape plays an important role in legal language too. This article traces the appearance of this metaphor across some key moments in English criminal law in which injustice is conceptualized metaphorically in terms of being held up, kept down or back, etc. and that achieving a just outcome necessitates shaking off the encumbrance and getting free. Through a close reading of some important legal judgments, it shows how establishing this intersection between law and literature helps to advance our understanding of the plausibility and persuasiveness of legal language. The article applies this insight to producing a new reading of the Supreme Court’s recent reworking of dishonesty in Ivey v Genting Casinos [2017] SC 67, as well as a novel re-examination of established and apparently familiar authorities on recklessness and excuses to murder.

中文翻译：

---

``地狱没有火焰，只有窗户无法打开''：法律和文学中的正义逃脱

摘要正义斗争在文学和戏剧中通常通过隐喻身体拥挤（局促，束缚，纠缠和陷入泥潭）和逃避（开阔景观以及对地平线和天空的视线）来表达。鲜为人知或观察到的这种阻碍/逃避的隐喻对立在法律语言中也起着重要作用。本文在英国刑法的一些关键时刻追溯了这种隐喻的出现，在这些关键时刻，不公正被隐喻化为被支撑，压低或倒退等概念，并且要实现公正的结果就必须摆脱负担和获得自由。通过仔细阅读一些重要的法律判决，它显示了在法律与文学之间建立这种交汇点如何有助于增进我们对法律语言的合理性和说服力的理解。本文运用这种见解，对最高法院最近对Ivey v Genting Casinos [2017] SC 67的不诚实行为进行重新解读，以及对既定的和显然熟悉的当局进行鲁and和谋杀借口的新颖复审。