Advertisement

The Liverpool Law Review

, Volume 4, Issue 1, pp 69–76 | Cite as

Obtaining a conviction by deception

  • Peter Paulden
Current Developments
  • 18 Downloads

Keywords

Credit Card Supra Note Criminal Liability Contractual Arrangement Agency Analysis 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Theft Act 1968, ss. 15 and 16. Theft Act 1978, ss. 1 and 2.Google Scholar
  2. 3.
    [1976] 3 All E.R. 112; [1976] 3 W.L.R. 431 (H.L.). Affirming [1976] 1 All E.R. 659; [1976] 1 W.L.R. 248 (C.A.).Google Scholar
  3. 4.
    [1981] 2 All E.R. 776; [1981] 3 W.L.R. 88 (H.L.) Reversing [1981] 1 All E.R. 332; [1981] 1 W.L.R. 78 (C.A.).Google Scholar
  4. 5.
    See, for example, Professor Smith’s case-commentary on the House of Lords decision inLambie: [1981]Criminal Law Review, 713.Google Scholar
  5. 6.
    Theft Act 1968, ss. 15(4) and 16(3). Theft Act 1978, s. 5(1).Google Scholar
  6. 8.
    Charles [1976] 3 All E.R. 112, 114 (Lord Diplock).Lambie [1981] 2 All E.R. 776, 780 (Lord Roskill).Google Scholar
  7. 9.
    See, for example,Sullivan (1945) 30 Cr. App. Rep. 132 (referred to with approval by the House of Lords inLambie [1981] 2 All E.R. 776, 782).Google Scholar
  8. 10.
    See, for example, the Court of Appeal’s judment inLambie [1981] 1 All E.R. 332, 335–6.Google Scholar
  9. 15.
    Charles [1976] 3 All E.R. 112, 123 (Lord Edmund-Davies).Lambie [1981] 2 All E.R. 776, 781–2 (Lord Roskill).Google Scholar
  10. 16.
    Similar reasoning has been utilized in the different context of a customer’s inferred attitude, where an employee is defrauding his employer:Doukas [1978] 1 All E.R. 1061 (C.A.). ContrastRashid [1977] 2 All E.R. 237 (C.A.).Google Scholar
  11. 17.
    The argument was first suggested by Professor Smith in his case-commentary onKovacs: [1974]Criminal Law Review, 183.Google Scholar
  12. 19.
    Charles [1976] 3 All E.R. 112, 114,per Lord Diplock.Lambie [1981] 2 All E.R. 776, 780–781,per Lord Roskill.Google Scholar
  13. 20.
    Lambie [1981] 2 All E.R. 776, 781,per Lord Roskill.Google Scholar
  14. 21.
    See Francis Bennion, “The Lambie Case”, 131New Law Journal (1981), 1041.Google Scholar
  15. 22.
  16. 23.
    Theft Act 1968, ss. 15 and 16. Theft Act 1978, ss. 1 and 2.Google Scholar
  17. 26.
    Theft Act 1968, s. 16(2)a. It has now been repealed. Theft Act 1978, s. 5(5).Google Scholar
  18. 27.
    Theft Act 1968, s. 16(2)b.Google Scholar
  19. 28.
    Theft Act 1968, s. 16(2)c (“opportunity to earn remuneration or greater remuneration in an office or employment, or to win money by betting”).Google Scholar
  20. 29.
    Theft Act 1978, s. 1.Google Scholar
  21. 30.
    The basis of distinction between a temporary evasion and a deferment was no easy matter:D.P.P. v.Turner [1973] 3 All E.R. 124 (H.L.).Google Scholar
  22. 31.
    See Theft Act 1978, s.2(1)b.Google Scholar
  23. 32.
    Lambie [1981] 2 All E.R. 776, 779,per Lord Roskill.Google Scholar
  24. 33.
    For a summary of the conflicting arguments see [1981]Criminal Law Review, 716–7.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 1982

Authors and Affiliations

  • Peter Paulden
    • 1
  1. 1.The University of HullHullUK

Personalised recommendations