Theft 0.0 / 5 ? LawCriminal lawA2/A-levelAQA Created by: georgiaball10Created on: 05-05-16 13:29 What is defined in S1 Theft Act 1968? Theft 1 of 24 What is defined in S3 (1) Theft Act 1968? Appropriation 2 of 24 In which case did a woman swap the label of own brand beans for heinz? R v Morriss 3 of 24 Which case demonstrated that consent is not an issue dealt with in appropriation? DPP v Gomez 4 of 24 Which case demonstrated that dishonesty is not an issue dealt with in appropriation? R v Hinks 5 of 24 What is defined in S4 Theft Act 1968? Property. 6 of 24 What type of property is defined in S4 (2) Theft Act 1968? Real property 7 of 24 Which case demonstrated things in action with the example of a bank card? R v Marshall 8 of 24 Which case demonstrated other intangible objects with the example of knowledge? Oxford v Moss 9 of 24 What was defined in S5 Theft Act 1968? Belonging to another 10 of 24 Which case demonstrated that some rights overrule the right to possession? R v Turner 11 of 24 Which case demonstrated that it was not necessary for the V to know they own the property? R v Woodman 12 of 24 Which case demonstrated that you give up the right to property if you abandon it? Williams v Phillips 13 of 24 Which case use used to demonstrate the point set out in S5(3) Theft Act 1968 Davidge & Bunnett 14 of 24 Section 5 (4) - if you receive property by mistake you are under legal obligation to .... .......... make restoration 15 of 24 What is defined in S2 Theft Act 1968? Dishonesty 16 of 24 If none of the exceptions on S2 apply what test to we use? Ghosh Test 17 of 24 What is set out in S6 (1) Theft Act 1968? intention to permanently deprive 18 of 24 In which case were headphones broken then returned which amounted to IPD? DPP V J 19 of 24 In which case did the D take films and copy them and return the originals, found not IPD? R v Lloyd 20 of 24 In R v Lloyd who said that it must be in such a changed state that all goodness and virtue has gone? Lord Lane 21 of 24 In which case was it held to be IPD because the exact bank notes could not be returned? R v Velumyl 22 of 24 In which case was it held that conditional intent was not sufficient? R v Easom 23 of 24 In what case was it said that intention to treat something as your own was sufficient? Raphael and Another 24 of 24
Comments
No comments have yet been made