R V Lawrence

	R V Lawrence R v Lawence may refer to: R v Lawrence, 47 Cr App R 72, CCA R v Lawrence, 52 Cr App R 163, 9681 WLR 341, 9681 All ER 579, CA R v Lawrence, 55 Cr App R 73, 9703 All ER 933, CA R v Lawrence 977Crim LR 492 R v Lawrence, 3 Cr App R (S) 49, CA R v Lawrence 982AC 510, 9812 WLR 524, 73 Cr App R 1, 9811 All ER 974, 981RTR 217, 981Crim LR 409, HL, reversing 71 Cr App R 291 R v Lawrence, 5 Cr App R (S) 220, CA R v Lawrence, 11 Cr App R (S) 580, CA R v Lawrence (1989) The Times, December 4, CA R v Lawrence and Nash (1993) unreported, CA (transcript nos. 92/1355/Z2, 92/1356/Z2)See Archbold Criminal Pleading, Evidence and Practice, 1999, paragraph 15-496B at pages 1455 and 1456. * R v Lawrence and Pomroy (1971) 57 Cr App R 64, 971Crim LR 645, CA Lawrence v Metropolitan Police Commissioner 972AC 626, 9713 WLR 225, 55 Cr App R 471, HL, affirming 971 Year 971 ( CMLXXI) was a common year starting on Sunday (link will display the full calendar) of the Julian calendar. Event ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR:* [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu]
	Recklessness (law) In criminal law and in the law of tort, recklessness may be defined as the state of mind where a person deliberately and unjustifiably pursues a course of action while consciously disregarding any risks flowing from such action. Recklessness is less culpable than malice, but is more blameworthy than carelessness. ''Mens rea'' and ''actus reus'' To commit a criminal offence of ''ordinary'' liability (as opposed to strict liability) the prosecution must show both the ''actus reus'' (guilty act) and ''mens rea'' (guilty mind). A person cannot be guilty of an offence for his actions alone; there must also be the requisite intention, knowledge, recklessness, or criminal negligence at the relevant time. In the case of negligence, however, the ''mens rea'' is implied. Criminal law recognizes recklessness as one of four main classes of mental state constituting ''mens rea'' elements to establish liability, namely: Intention: intending the action; foreseeing the result; desiring th ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR:* [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu]
	Archbold Criminal Pleading, Evidence And Practice ''Archbold Criminal Pleading, Evidence and Practice'' (usually called simply ''Archbold'') is the leading practitioners' text for criminal lawyers in England and Wales and several other common law jurisdictions around the world. It has been in publication since 1822, when it was first written by John Frederick Archbold, and is currently published by Sweet & Maxwell, a subsidiary of Thomson Reuters. Forty-three revisions were published prior to 1992 and since then it has been published annually. Its authority is such that it is often quoted in court. The team of authors is made up of experienced barristers, KCs and judges. Editors Magistrates' courts As far as it covers procedure and practice, ''Archbold'' refers to those of the Crown Court. A separate volume, ''Archbold Magistrates' Courts Criminal Practice'' covers the magistrates' courts.Sweet & MaxwellArchbold Magistrates' Courts Criminal Practice 2023 accessed 25 November 2022 Archbold Magistrates' Courts Criminal Pract ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu]
	Blackmail Blackmail is an act of coercion using the threat of revealing or publicizing either substantially true or false information about a person or people unless certain demands are met. It is often damaging information, and it may be revealed to family members or associates rather than to the general public. These acts can also involve using threats of physical, mental or emotional harm, or of criminal prosecution, against the victim or someone close to the victim. It is normally carried out for personal gain, most commonly of position, money, or property. Blackmail may also be considered a form of extortion. Although the two are generally synonymous, extortion is the taking of personal property by threat of future harm. Blackmail is the use of threat to prevent another from engaging in a lawful occupation and writing libelous letters or letters that provoke a breach of the peace, as well as use of intimidation for purposes of collecting an unpaid debt. In many jurisdictions, bla ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu]
	Lawrence V Metropolitan Police Commissioner ''Lawrence v Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis'' (otherwise known as ''R v Lawrence'') 972AC 262 is an English criminal law case establishing that the appropriation of property — under the meaning of the Theft Act 1968 — can be consented to. The House of Lords here ruled that an appropriation of property can occur even with the consent of the owner. To this end, they commented that the drafter's intentions in leaving out consent from the offence was to relieve the prosecution of establishing a lack of consent. Facts Upon arrival at London Victoria railway station an Italian student got into a taxi driven by the defendant. The student then handed the driver a piece of paper with the destination he wished to go to. The taxi driver informed him that it was a long and expensive journey,972AC 626, at 626 and proceeded to take £6 from the student's open wallet, ostensibly to cover the fare. Unknown to the student, who was not familiar with the area, the correct fare was ju ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu]