header-logo header-logo

30 May 2008
Issue: 7323 / Categories: Case law , Law digest
printer mail-detail

Criminal Law

R v Raphael and another [2008] EWCA Crim 1014, [2008] All ER (D) 159 (May)

The defendants took the victim’s car by force and demanded payment for its return.

HELD The express language of s 6(1) of the Theft Act 1968 specifies that the subjective element necessary to establish the mens rea for theft includes an intention on the part of the taker “to treat the thing as his own to dispose of regardless of the other’s rights”.

This includes the situation where the defendant makes an offer to sell the loser’s own property back to him, and to make its return subject to a condition or conditions inconsistent with his right to possession of his own property.
 

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Thomson Hayton Winkley—Jordan Wallace

Thomson Hayton Winkley—Jordan Wallace

Thomson Hayton Winkley strengthens family law team

Ward Hadaway—Barnaby Rosenthall

Ward Hadaway—Barnaby Rosenthall

Construction lawyer returns to Ward Hadaway in Teesside role

Bird & Bird—Shahin Baghaei

Bird & Bird—Shahin Baghaei

Bird Bird hires leading legal transformation expert

NEWS
The Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA) has warned solicitors and law firms that using artificial intelligence does not alter their professional obligations, amid concerns over inaccurate legal material and client confidentiality
From forgotten interest claims to case-management appeals, a string of procedural developments offers useful—and occasionally cautionary—lessons for practitioners

Jonathan Fisher KC highlights that it now accounts for around 40% of criminal offences, with roughly 70% involving technology, and argues that the UK cannot simply prosecute its way out of the problem. Detection, investigation and prosecution all require improvement, while different fraud types demand tailored responses.

How forcefully can a litigant criticise a public authority before robust advocacy crosses the line into unreasonable conduct? 
Can a meticulously maintained spreadsheet turn a couple’s informal financial arrangements into legally enforceable obligations? 
back-to-top-scroll