Atkinson v R.

Atkinson v R.

The judge's directions, viewed as a whole, properly instructed the jury on the mental element of dishonesty required for false accounting. The directions were legally sufficient and did not mislead the jury. The convictions were safe.

Parties
Appellant: Layean Atkinson; Respondent: R.
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
07 November 2003
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Judgment on Appeal
Outcome
appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
False Accounting, Dishonesty, Mental Element, Jury Directions
Criminal Law False Accounting Dishonesty Mental Element Jury Directions

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 3 Authorities cited 9 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Layean Atkinson

Appellant

R.

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Judgment on Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the trial judge misdirected the jury on the mental element required for false accounting under section 17(1)(a) of the Theft Act 1968
  2. 2 Whether the directions on dishonesty and intent were legally sufficient
  3. 3 Whether a Ghosh direction was required

Ratio Decidendi

The judge's directions, viewed as a whole, properly instructed the jury on the mental element of dishonesty required for false accounting. The directions were legally sufficient and did not mislead the jury. The convictions were safe.

Court Disposition

appeal dismissed

Orders

  • convictions upheld
  • application for leave on fourth ground refused