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
The TA 1968, s 6 should not be referred to where it is clear that the defendant does intend the owner to lose his property permanently
Answer
R v Lloyd ([1985] 2 All ER 661

Tags
#crime #law #theft
Question
The TA 1968, s 6 should not be referred to where it is clear that the defendant does intend the owner to lose his property permanently
Answer
?

Tags
#crime #law #theft
Question
The TA 1968, s 6 should not be referred to where it is clear that the defendant does intend the owner to lose his property permanently
Answer
R v Lloyd ([1985] 2 All ER 661
If you want to change selection, open original toplevel document below and click on "Move attachment"

Parent (intermediate) annotation

Open it
The Act does not define intention to permanently deprive and it should be given its ordinary everyday meaning. The TA 1968, s 6 should not be referred to where it is clear that the defendant does intend the owner to lose his property permanently: R v Lloyd ([1985] 2 All ER 661.)

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.