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 [...]: R v Lloyd ([1985] 2 All ER 661.)
Answer
it is clear that the defendant does intend the owner to lose his property permanently
Tags
#crime #law #theft
Question
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 [...]: R v Lloyd ([1985] 2 All ER 661.)
Answer
?
Tags
#crime #law #theft
Question
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 [...]: R v Lloyd ([1985] 2 All ER 661.)
Answer
it is clear that the defendant does intend the owner to lose his property permanently
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
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.