A scrotefruit (through its tutor) v The Commonwealth

HABEAS CORPUS - scrotefruit - legal definition thereof - standing of a scotefruit before the High Court - GUILTY PLEA - whether a scrotefruit has capacity to plead guilty - whether said scrotefruit can be fed to the dogs.

The appellant is a scrotefruit, formerly a young man named B____cup, who is being held prisoner at Guano Bay on suspicion of being a sex-terrorist and a member of the outlawed Eel-Qaeda organisation. He was observed behaving suspiciously around the stables. The federal police were contacted and they discovered him attending the rim of a show horse that had been feagued with sea eels the night before. The lieutenant-in-charge sought to apprehend him and when his shovel made contact with the back of the appellant's head, he reported seeing a thick mash of eels, fartleberries and bloodied man-jelly exiting from the mouth and nose. The appellant was arrested for eel-felching (which was retrospectively made an offence this year).

Although charges have yet to be officially laid, the appellant has been incarcerated for the last 6 years and has been made into a scrotefruit. He claims this is unlawful. Let me explain the process of scrotefruitrification, since much of the appellant's case turns upon it: once the suspect has had his intestines searched for eels or other terrorist materiel (by way of disembowelment), a determination is made by the secret service as to whether the suspect is an eligible host for an Eel-Qaeda sleeper cell. If the answer is yes, he is taken to Guano Bay and prepared for his conversion into a scrotefruit. The first step is to stretch the urethra which is usually done with a pair of pliers and a hammer. A bucket of Eel-Qaeda Youth recruits is then pumped into the gaping faucet. It generally takes two or three days for the fry to make their way up the urinal tract. Their wriggling evidentally causes some distress for the prisoner and a practice has now developed of amputating his arms and legs and knocking out his teeth to prevent him from tearing off his own genitals.

The interrogators can tell when the assets have arrived because the prisoner's gonads swell to the size of large papayas. When this happens they are shaven and sandpaper is applied until the skin of his scrote is all but removed and only a thin translucent layer remains. This then provides a perfect panopticon for the secret service to monitor the activities of the young conspirators swimming inside. An intravenous drip attached to the testes provides the eels with more than enough sustenance and amino acids for them to grow into full adults, at which point the sacs become as big as watermelons. However, the prisoner's head and torso receive only a fraction of the nutrients and therefore wither away to a little blob of skin and gristle atop the mature scrotefruit (known as the "stalk"). The stalk's only useful function is as a pituitary gland for the bulging scrotum below - althought it is technically still a basic central nervous system with the capacity to feel a lot of pain and to reflect on its place in the universe.

Finally he is placed on a butcher's hook and hung on a rack with the other scrotefruits in the Guano Bay facilities. The secret service watch over their orchard, on alert for the slightest change in any scrotefruit that may signify an impending terrorist attack. When a conspiracy is detected, the scrotefruit is harvested and taken away for examination. The remaining stalk is now worthless and is given to the dogs, as one would also do with a placenta.

A prisoner's only mode of communication is to blink his (barely perceptible) eyelids because he no longer has the faculty of speech. This is of course a laborious exercise and it took the appellant in these proceedings no less than 3 years for to him to have his appeal to the High Court transcribed by his tutor. Even then, the Attorney-General had it struck out for a typographical error and it had to be re-drafted which took another 3 years. I have now read the appellant's plea. It is a request for a writ of habeas corpus. The appellant asks that he be officially charged and sentenced, ideally, to a swift death. It is said that it is a denial of his fundamental human rights to have his trial delayed in this way.

However, it is a necessary evil in the war on terror that certain suspects who hold important information about Eel-Qaeda be interrogated more thoroughly than is ordinarily consistent with our civil rights. At any rate, I doubt that, as a scrotefruit, the appellant has the standing - or indeed any kind of legal capacity - to request this writ and I note the Privy Council case of Peppas v a tomato.

Certainly it is unfortunate that the appellant has had to have been turned into a scrotefruit. In his affidavit he describes every moment as a living hell with the eels squirming in his nuts giving him the ongoing sensation of being slowly castrated with a blunt knife. But he should take solace in the great service he is doing for our nation and consider it a just and fair punishment for his horse molesterings.

I therefore refuse to issue the writ. Costs to be paid by the fruit.