Gimbert v The Queen

Gimbert v The Queen

The conviction for theft of land under Count 2 cannot stand because the appellant was not 'authorised by power of attorney' within the meaning of s.4(2)(a) of the Theft Act 1968, as the power of attorney was null and void due to the donor's incapacity and lack of registration. The statutory exception does not extend to purported or believed authority.

Parties
Appellant: John David Gimbert; Applicant/respondent: David John Gimbert; Respondent: The Queen
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
10 October 2018
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Judgment on Appeal and Renewed Application
Outcome
appeal allowed (John); renewed application refused (David)
Legal Topics
Theft, Conspiracy to Defraud, Interpretation of Theft Act 1968 S.4(2), Capacity and Powers of Attorney
Criminal Law Theft Conspiracy to Defraud Interpretation of Theft Act 1968 S.4(2) Capacity and Powers of Attorney

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 2 Authorities cited 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 6
Sign in to unlock

Parties

John David Gimbert

Appellant

David John Gimbert

Applicant/respondent

The Queen

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Judgment on Appeal and Renewed Application

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether theft of land can be charged under s.4(2) of the Theft Act 1968 in the circumstances where the power of attorney is null and void
  2. 2 Whether the conviction for theft (Count 2) can stand in law
  3. 3 Whether the Recorder at retrial erred in refusing a submission of no case to answer on conspiracy to defraud

Ratio Decidendi

The conviction for theft of land under Count 2 cannot stand because the appellant was not 'authorised by power of attorney' within the meaning of s.4(2)(a) of the Theft Act 1968, as the power of attorney was null and void due to the donor's incapacity and lack of registration. The statutory exception does not extend to purported or believed authority.

Court Disposition

appeal allowed (John); renewed application refused (David)

Orders

  • Conviction on Count 2 (theft) against John quashed.
  • Renewed application for leave to appeal against conviction by David refused.