R v Cahill [1993] Crim LR 141 FACTS: In this case, the defendant and his co-accused, Jenner, were returning home after a night out. Both defendants were intoxicated. Two plain-clothed officers watched the defendants as they headed down the street. Cahill stumbled over a pile of newspapers meant for the nearby newsagents. It was alleged by the prosecution that Jenner took one of the papers and that Cahill picked up the package of newspapers and walked off with them. Both men were immediately arrested and subsequently convicted of theft. Cahill argued that he thought that he had picked up a bag of rubbish and he was under the impression that it would be left on a friend's doorstep as a practical joke.
HELD: His conviction for theft was [...], on the basis that the original trial judge misdirected the jury on the meaning of the TA 1968, s 6(1), by failing to mention the words 'to dispose of'. The Court of Appeal determined that the phrase 'to dispose of' limited the operation of the TA 1968, s 6(1) to where the accused intended to: 'To deal with definitely: to get rid of; to get done with, finish. To make over by way of sale or bargain, sell.'
Answer
quashed
Tags
#crime #law #theft
Question
R v Cahill [1993] Crim LR 141 FACTS: In this case, the defendant and his co-accused, Jenner, were returning home after a night out. Both defendants were intoxicated. Two plain-clothed officers watched the defendants as they headed down the street. Cahill stumbled over a pile of newspapers meant for the nearby newsagents. It was alleged by the prosecution that Jenner took one of the papers and that Cahill picked up the package of newspapers and walked off with them. Both men were immediately arrested and subsequently convicted of theft. Cahill argued that he thought that he had picked up a bag of rubbish and he was under the impression that it would be left on a friend's doorstep as a practical joke.
HELD: His conviction for theft was [...], on the basis that the original trial judge misdirected the jury on the meaning of the TA 1968, s 6(1), by failing to mention the words 'to dispose of'. The Court of Appeal determined that the phrase 'to dispose of' limited the operation of the TA 1968, s 6(1) to where the accused intended to: 'To deal with definitely: to get rid of; to get done with, finish. To make over by way of sale or bargain, sell.'
Answer
?
Tags
#crime #law #theft
Question
R v Cahill [1993] Crim LR 141 FACTS: In this case, the defendant and his co-accused, Jenner, were returning home after a night out. Both defendants were intoxicated. Two plain-clothed officers watched the defendants as they headed down the street. Cahill stumbled over a pile of newspapers meant for the nearby newsagents. It was alleged by the prosecution that Jenner took one of the papers and that Cahill picked up the package of newspapers and walked off with them. Both men were immediately arrested and subsequently convicted of theft. Cahill argued that he thought that he had picked up a bag of rubbish and he was under the impression that it would be left on a friend's doorstep as a practical joke.
HELD: His conviction for theft was [...], on the basis that the original trial judge misdirected the jury on the meaning of the TA 1968, s 6(1), by failing to mention the words 'to dispose of'. The Court of Appeal determined that the phrase 'to dispose of' limited the operation of the TA 1968, s 6(1) to where the accused intended to: 'To deal with definitely: to get rid of; to get done with, finish. To make over by way of sale or bargain, sell.'
Answer
quashed
If you want to change selection, open original toplevel document below and click on "Move attachment"
Parent (intermediate) annotation
Open it d subsequently convicted of theft. Cahill argued that he thought that he had picked up a bag of rubbish and he was under the impression that it would be left on a friend's doorstep as a practical joke.
HELD: His conviction for theft was <span>quashed, on the basis that the original trial judge misdirected the jury on the meaning of the TA 1968, s 6(1), by failing to mention the words 'to dispose of'. The Court of Appeal determined t
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.