Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Obtaining a conviction by deception

  • Current Developments
  • Published:
The Liverpool Law Review Aims and scope Submit manuscript

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

References

  1. Theft Act 1968, ss. 15 and 16. Theft Act 1978, ss. 1 and 2.

  2. [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.).

  3. [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.).

  4. See, for example, Professor Smith’s case-commentary on the House of Lords decision inLambie: [1981]Criminal Law Review, 713.

  5. Theft Act 1968, ss. 15(4) and 16(3). Theft Act 1978, s. 5(1).

  6. Charles [1976] 3 All E.R. 112, 114 (Lord Diplock).Lambie [1981] 2 All E.R. 776, 780 (Lord Roskill).

  7. 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).

  8. See, for example, the Court of Appeal’s judment inLambie [1981] 1 All E.R. 332, 335–6.

  9. Charles [1976] 3 All E.R. 112, 123 (Lord Edmund-Davies).Lambie [1981] 2 All E.R. 776, 781–2 (Lord Roskill).

  10. 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.).

  11. The argument was first suggested by Professor Smith in his case-commentary onKovacs: [1974]Criminal Law Review, 183.

  12. Charles [1976] 3 All E.R. 112, 114,per Lord Diplock.Lambie [1981] 2 All E.R. 776, 780–781,per Lord Roskill.

  13. Lambie [1981] 2 All E.R. 776, 781,per Lord Roskill.

  14. See Francis Bennion, “The Lambie Case”, 131New Law Journal (1981), 1041.

    Google Scholar 

  15. Ibid..

    Google Scholar 

  16. Theft Act 1968, ss. 15 and 16. Theft Act 1978, ss. 1 and 2.

  17. Theft Act 1968, s. 16(2)a. It has now been repealed. Theft Act 1978, s. 5(5).

  18. Theft Act 1968, s. 16(2)b.

  19. 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”).

  20. Theft Act 1978, s. 1.

  21. 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.).

  22. See Theft Act 1978, s.2(1)b.

  23. Lambie [1981] 2 All E.R. 776, 779,per Lord Roskill.

  24. For a summary of the conflicting arguments see [1981]Criminal Law Review, 716–7.

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. The University of Hull, Hull, UK

    Peter Paulden (Lecturer in Law)

Authors
  1. Peter Paulden
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Paulden, P. Obtaining a conviction by deception. Liverpool Law Rev 4, 69–76 (1982). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03185309

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03185309

Keywords

Search

Navigation