Do you want BuboFlash to help you learning these things? Or do you want to add or correct something? Click here to log in or create user.



#crime #law #theft
In R v Adams [1993] Crim LR 72, the defendant purchased goods not knowing that they were stolen. The trial court convicted him of theft on the basis that there had been a later appropriation under the TA 1968, s 3(1) when he kept the goods after finding out that they were stolen. However, the conviction was quashed on appeal on the ground that the judge failed to direct the jury that he had a defence under the TA 1968, s 3(2).
If you want to change selection, open document below and click on "Move attachment"

pdf

cannot see any pdfs


Summary

statusnot read reprioritisations
last reprioritisation on suggested re-reading day
started reading on finished reading on

Details


Discussion

Do you want to join discussion? Click here to log in or create user.