Recent Judicial Decisions
| Date | 01 April 1958 |
| Published date | 01 April 1958 |
| DOI | 10.1177/0032258X5803100203 |
| Subject Matter | Article |
RECENT
JUDICIAL DECISIONS 81
case because the judge thought that it was disquieting for anyone who
has to try a number of sexual cases to observe, on the one hand, the
proportion in which an acquittal takes place through lack of corrobora-
tion, and because of the warning that the judge is bound to give to a
jury; and to observe, on the other hand, the number of cases where
corroboration is found in some oral statement alleged to have been
made by the accused and to constitute an admission which, if put
into the context for which the defence contends, may well have
amounted to a denial of, or at least
to
no more than a colourless
explanation of, the accused's alleged conduct.
The conclusion reached in R. v. Joyce was that the words "I need
to take a statement from you" or even words covering a suggestion
that the accused would have to come to the station because the Police
needed to take a statement from him when they got there, was not
an inducement in any way relating to the charge or accusation. The
prosecution, therefore, were allowed to give 'evidence of the admissions
alleged to have been made by the accused. The trial proceeded and in
the result the jury returned a verdict of Not Guilty on all counts.
Recent Judicial Decisions
LARCENY
AFTER
WRONGFUL
BUT
NOT
FELONIOUS
TAKING
R. v. Kindon
If
the original taking of possession was a rightful act then subse-
quent misappropriation does not make it a felony, but
if
the original
taking of possession was a wrongful act, though not a felonious act,
then a subsequent disposition of the goods with intent to steal does
constitute the felony of larceny. This is a well-known distinction of
the common law which is referred to in all textbooks on criminal law.
The principle was applied to support a conviction of larceny in
R. v. Kindon (41 Cr. App, R. 208).
The appellant to the Court of Criminal Appeal visited the flat of
Pwith two other women and during P's temporary absence £1,100 in
notes was taken from his desk.
The
appellant later admitted having
taken the money, but at her trial for stealing it in P's dwelling-
house she put forward the defence that at the time she was under the
influence of drink and drugs to such an extent as to be incapable of
forming the intention of stealing. She was in fact under the influence
of drink, at least to some extent, and the jury acquitted her of this
particular charge. But they convicted her of stealing £150 of the money
in view of the following further facts. After the £1,100 had been taken
To continue reading
Request your trial