R v Loughlin
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Date | 1951 |
| Year | 1951 |
| Court | Court of Criminal Appeal |
-
- This document is available in original version only for vLex customers
View this document and try vLex for 7 days - TRY VLEX
- This document is available in original version only for vLex customers
10 cases
-
Stupple v Royal Insurance Company Ltd
...justified only a conviction for receiving and not for the theft itself. But Lord Goddard scotched that fallacy in ( R. v. Loughlin 1951,35 C.A.R., 69) and ( R. v. Seymour 1954, 1 W.L.R., 678). It is open to the jury to convict of the theft itself. And in this rega.rd recent possession of st......
-
Khan and Others v The State
...and receiving counts should have been left to the jury to decide which of the two offences, if any, the appellant Khan was guilty of [see R v Loughlin [1951] 35 C.A.R. p.69]. 4 In Rex v Langmead [1864] 9 Cox CG 464 it was held “where an indictment contains counts for larceny and receiving, ......
-
R v Cash
...is in recent possession, to think that that only justifies a verdict of receiving and not of stealing. We tried to correct that view in Rex v Loughlin, the headnote to which reads: "Where it is proved that premises have been broken into and property stolen therefrom, and that very soon afte......
-
Sookraj v Ceres
...of the stolen watches shortly after the theft of them, he could legally convict him of the offence charged. [See James Loughlin, (1951) 35 Cr. App. R. 69, and Duke v. Regina (1966–7) 10 W.I.R. 173.] But putting the matter that way over-simplifies the legal position, for there are these add......
Request a trial to view additional results