FACTS: The defendant had borrowed money from his employer's safe, even though he knew this was against company rules. He said he intended to repay it on the following day after a debt had been repaid to him. HELD: It was held by the Court of Appeal that intending to return coins of an equivalent value is not the same as intending to return the identical ones that were taken. Therefore, although such an intention may be relevant to the issue of dishonesty, it does not negative the intention to permanently deprive the owner of the original notes and coins.
Tags
#crime #law #theft
Question
R v Velumyl [1989] Crim LR 299
Answer
?
Tags
#crime #law #theft
Question
R v Velumyl [1989] Crim LR 299
Answer
FACTS: The defendant had borrowed money from his employer's safe, even though he knew this was against company rules. He said he intended to repay it on the following day after a debt had been repaid to him. HELD: It was held by the Court of Appeal that intending to return coins of an equivalent value is not the same as intending to return the identical ones that were taken. Therefore, although such an intention may be relevant to the issue of dishonesty, it does not negative the intention to permanently deprive the owner of the original notes and coins.
If you want to change selection, open original toplevel document below and click on "Move attachment"
Parent (intermediate) annotation
Open it R v Velumyl [1989] Crim LR 299 FACTS: The defendant had borrowed money from his employer's safe, even though he knew this was against company rules. He said he intended to repay it on the following day after a debt
Original toplevel document (pdf)
cannot see any pdfs
Summary
status
not learned
measured difficulty
37% [default]
last interval [days]
repetition number in this series
0
memorised 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.