R v Seymour
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Date | 1954 |
| Court | Court of 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
17 cases
-
Ortmann and Others v United States of America and Another
...281 Crimes Act 1961, ss 243–245. 282 Section 247(a). 283 The Queen v Keenan [1967] NZLR 608 (CA) at 609; and Regina v Seymour [1954] 1 WLR 678 (Crim App). 284 HC judgment, above n 2, at 285 See below at [252]. 286 HC judgment, above n 2. 287 See above at [173]–[181]. 288 HC judgment, above......
-
O'Leary v Cunningham
...195. 8 The State (McLoughlin) v. Shannon [1948] I.R. 439. 9 The State (Attorney General) v. Connolly [1948] I.R. 176. 10 R v. Seymour [1954] 1 W.L.R. 678. 11 The People (Attorney General) v. Earls [1969] I.R. 414. 12 R. v. Gamble (1847) 16 M. & W. 384. 13 The Minister for Supplies v. Connor......
-
Stupple v Royal Insurance Company Ltd
...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 stolen money bears a stronger colour than re......
-
R v Cash
...on one count they should be discharged from returning a verdict on the alternative. In support of his argument, counsel referred us to R v Seymour [1954] 1 WLR 678, where Lord Goddard CJ said: "There is a tendency nowadays where there is no positive evidence that a man stole goods, that is ......
Request a trial to view additional results
2 books & journal articles
-
Recent Possession, Larceny and Robbery
...this appeal was allowed, on the groundofmisdirection):and in recent years R. v. Loughlin (1951) 35 Cr. App. Rep. 69 andR. v. Seymour [1954] 1 All E.R. 1006, C.C.A., R. v. Schama, supra,indicates that the proper meaning of "satisfactorily explains"isnot-"Unless you (the jury) are satisfied t......
-
Recent Judicial Decisions
...in R. v. Loughlin (1951, 35 Cr. App. R. 69)".This observation was made in the judgment of the Court of CriminalAppeal in R. v. Seymour (1954, 1 W.L.R. 678).Itis necessary inthese receiving cases that it should be explained to the jury that, ifthe charge against a man is one of receiving, th......