Vinall & Anor v R

Vinall & Anor v R

The judge's directions to the jury were inadequate and confused the concepts of appropriation and intent to permanently deprive. The directions failed to ensure the jury considered whether the requisite intent existed at the time of taking, which is essential for robbery. The convictions are unsafe and must be quashed.

Parties
1st Appellant: George Alfred Peter Vinall; 2nd Appellant: J; Respondent: Regina
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
16 November 2011
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Conviction
Outcome
Convictions quashed; appeals allowed.
Legal Topics
Robbery, Theft, Appropriation, Intent to Permanently Deprive, Section 6 Theft Act 1968
Criminal Law Robbery Theft Appropriation Intent to Permanently Deprive Section 6 Theft Act 1968

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 4 Authorities cited 16 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

George Alfred Peter Vinall

1st Appellant

J

2nd Appellant

Regina

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Conviction

Legal Issues

  1. 1 What is required to prove appropriation of property with intent permanently to deprive the owner under the Theft Act 1968?
  2. 2 Whether the judge correctly directed the jury on appropriation and intent to permanently deprive in the context of robbery.

Ratio Decidendi

The judge's directions to the jury were inadequate and confused the concepts of appropriation and intent to permanently deprive. The directions failed to ensure the jury considered whether the requisite intent existed at the time of taking, which is essential for robbery. The convictions are unsafe and must be quashed.

Court Disposition

Convictions quashed; appeals allowed.

Orders

  • Convictions for robbery quashed.
  • No substitution of conviction for theft or taking a pedal cycle.