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.



Tags
#crime #law #theft
Question
R v Mitchell [2008] EWCA Crim 850 FACTS: The defendant was believed to be part of a gang who took a car by force in order to escape from the police. The car was found abandoned a short while later with its doors open and hazard lights on. Following his arrest, the defendant was charged with robbery, which requires as part of the rules, that a complete theft had been committed (see Chapter 14). HELD: The Court of Appeal criticised the trial judge direction to jury as he had omitted any reference to the words 'to dispose of'. The Court of Appeal stated that [...]. They referred to the dictionary definition as quoted in Cahill and, on the facts, did not feel that the car had been 'got rid of, sold or bargained with'. Nor did the judges feel that the defendant had dealt with the car in a manner knowing that he was risking its loss, as per Fernandes. The manner in which the car was left suggested that they knew the owner of the car would get it back. On that basis, the defendant was successful in his appeal and his conviction was quashed, the defendant had not intended to treat the car as his own to dispose of regardless of the owner's rights.
Answer
it is not enough to merely deal with the property as your own

Tags
#crime #law #theft
Question
R v Mitchell [2008] EWCA Crim 850 FACTS: The defendant was believed to be part of a gang who took a car by force in order to escape from the police. The car was found abandoned a short while later with its doors open and hazard lights on. Following his arrest, the defendant was charged with robbery, which requires as part of the rules, that a complete theft had been committed (see Chapter 14). HELD: The Court of Appeal criticised the trial judge direction to jury as he had omitted any reference to the words 'to dispose of'. The Court of Appeal stated that [...]. They referred to the dictionary definition as quoted in Cahill and, on the facts, did not feel that the car had been 'got rid of, sold or bargained with'. Nor did the judges feel that the defendant had dealt with the car in a manner knowing that he was risking its loss, as per Fernandes. The manner in which the car was left suggested that they knew the owner of the car would get it back. On that basis, the defendant was successful in his appeal and his conviction was quashed, the defendant had not intended to treat the car as his own to dispose of regardless of the owner's rights.
Answer
?

Tags
#crime #law #theft
Question
R v Mitchell [2008] EWCA Crim 850 FACTS: The defendant was believed to be part of a gang who took a car by force in order to escape from the police. The car was found abandoned a short while later with its doors open and hazard lights on. Following his arrest, the defendant was charged with robbery, which requires as part of the rules, that a complete theft had been committed (see Chapter 14). HELD: The Court of Appeal criticised the trial judge direction to jury as he had omitted any reference to the words 'to dispose of'. The Court of Appeal stated that [...]. They referred to the dictionary definition as quoted in Cahill and, on the facts, did not feel that the car had been 'got rid of, sold or bargained with'. Nor did the judges feel that the defendant had dealt with the car in a manner knowing that he was risking its loss, as per Fernandes. The manner in which the car was left suggested that they knew the owner of the car would get it back. On that basis, the defendant was successful in his appeal and his conviction was quashed, the defendant had not intended to treat the car as his own to dispose of regardless of the owner's rights.
Answer
it is not enough to merely deal with the property as your own
If you want to change selection, open original toplevel document below and click on "Move attachment"

Parent (intermediate) annotation

Open it
rt of the rules, that a complete theft had been committed (see Chapter 14). HELD: The Court of Appeal criticised the trial judge direction to jury as he had omitted any reference to the words 'to dispose of'. The Court of Appeal stated that <span>it is not enough to merely deal with the property as your own. They referred to the dictionary definition as quoted in Cahill and, on the facts, did not feel that the car had been 'got rid of, sold or bargained with'. Nor did the judges feel tha

Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs

Summary

statusnot learnedmeasured difficulty37% [default]last interval [days]               
repetition number in this series0memorised on               scheduled repetition               
scheduled repetition interval               last repetition or drill

Details

No repetitions


Discussion

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