R v Curr [1968] 2 QB 944
Country:
United Kingdom
Reviewed By Oxbridge Law Team
Updated 2024-01-04 07:02:39 UTC
Defendant organised a money lending scheme, getting his assistants to go and collect other families’ allowances owed to other people.
CA quashed his conviction on the basis that the assistants didn’t know that they weren’t entitled to collect the money. Therefore the assistants didn’t know that they were being incited and hence Defendant could not be said to have incited them.
However, provided Defendant believed they knew, Ashworth argues, it ought to have been a case of incitement.
Any comments or edits about this case?
Get in touch Similar cases
R v Fitzmaurice
A wanted to get the reward for thwarting a robbery. He asked Defendant to recruit some people to rob Victim (who was complicit with A) when Victim was walking down the street. A and the people he rec...
R v Bainbridge
Defendant bought equipment for X, which X used in a crime. The judge said that it was sufficient for prosecution to show that D knew of X’s intention to commit a crime of the type which was committed...
Cheese v Thomas
Plaintiff agreed to contribute £40k towards his nephew, Defendant, buying a house that Plaintiff would be allowed to live in for life. Later learning that Defendant had missed several payments, Plain...
R v Gianetto
Defendant was charged with murdering V and judge said it was open to jury to convict if they were satisfied that Defendant had at least been an accessory, if not the principal. CA dismissed appeal, s...
R v JF Alford Transport
Defendants worked for a company and turned a blind eye to their truck drivers working longer hours than was allowed by EC regulations. In these circumstances CA quashed their convictions as accessori...
Ambitious and intelligent students
choose Oxbridge Notes.
- Customer Support
- Sellers FAQ
- Contact Us
- Privacy Policy
- Terms and Conditions
©2024 Oxbridge Notes. All right reserved.