R v McCall
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | THE LORD CHIEF JUSTICE,MR. JUSTICE SHAW |
| Judgment Date | 15 December 1970 |
| Judgment citation (vLex) | [1970] EWCA Crim J1215-2 |
| Court | Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) |
| Date | 15 December 1970 |
| Docket Number | No. 4603/B/70 |
Get this document and AI-powered insights with a free trial of vLex and Vincent AI
Get Started for FreeStart Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your 7-day Trial
3 cases
-
R v Xu
...2 All ER 406; and citing R v Greenstein [1976] 1 All ER 1, [1975] 1 WLR 1353. See also R v Naylor (1865) 10 Cox 149. R v McCall (1970) 55 Cr App R 175. At [H]e said that he had told lies in order to get the loan and he had also said that, having got the money, he used it for purposes other ......
-
R v Haresh Govindram Melwani
...the learned Judge's direction, despite the submission that Mr. Blair had made at the trial, drew our attention to the case of McCall 55 Cr. App. R. 175. It was held there, in a case under section 15 of the Theft Act, that the fact that the defendant intended to repay the money did not const......
-
R v Haresh Govindram Melwani
...the learned Judge's direction, despite the submission that Mr. Blair had made at the trial, drew our attention to the case of McCall 55 Cr. App. R. 175. It was held there, in a case under section 15 of the Theft Act, that the fact that the defendant intended to repay the money did not const......