Tuesday, January 21, 2014

Criminal Law

FRAUD AND DECEPTION BASIC PRINCIPLES Cases DPP v Ray [1973] This display case settled an important principle of legality applicable to well behaved deal caught legging it out of eaterys without settleing. It has been applied countless generation since. by and by eating a repast in the Wing Wah restaurant in Gainsborough, Lincolnshire, Roger Ray, a university student, and his three companions opinionated non to sacrifice. or so 10 minutes later, subsequently waiting for the waiter to word of farewell the dining room, they make off. Ray was convicted infra the Theft serve (now covered by the Fraud numeral 2006) and the conviction was upheld by the House of Lords. The law lords ruled that Ray had impliedly stated in pitching the meal that he intended to pay, and that by rest in his situation after deciding not to pay had ostensibly continue that earlier implied statement, thereby deceiving the waiter. R v Collis-Smith [1971] The defendant had launch throttle into his car and then incorrectly told the attendant that his employer would be paying for the petrol. The defendants appeal against conviction under s15 was successful in the Court of Appeal on the derriere that his lie did not arise until after the property in the petrol had passed to him. (Note:today, the appropriate charge in such a case would be an offence under s2 Theft Act 1978.
Ordercustompaper.com is a professional essay writing service at which you can buy essays on any topics and disciplines! All custom essays are written by professional writers!
) R v Coady [1996] The Court of Appeal quashed the defendants conviction for obtaining petrol at a self-service station by the deception that he was authorize to charge the petrol to the account of his power employer, which he was no longer entitled to do. The f! atal imperfection in the prosecution case was that it was clear that the defendant had apprised the cashier that the petrol should be charged to the account hardly after he had got the petrol. The judiciary was sceptical about the wider theatrical performance that when the defendant bevy onto the forecourt he represented an intention to pay which he did not in fact possess. This was alleged to be inconsistent with the same case of...If you want to get a full essay, order it on our website: OrderCustomPaper.com

If you want to get a full essay, visit our page: write my paper

No comments:

Post a Comment