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).
Tags
#crime #law #theft
Question
R v Adams [1993] Crim LR 72
Answer
?
Tags
#crime #law #theft
Question
R v Adams [1993] Crim LR 72
Answer
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 original toplevel document below and click on "Move attachment"
Parent (intermediate) annotation
Open it 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(
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.