Davison v Att. Gen. [1993] JLR 17 (21 January 1993)

Davison v Att. Gen. [1993] JLR 17 (21 January 1993)

The court held that the definition of larceny at common law in Jersey is broader than under the English Larceny Act 1916, and is not restricted by the English statute. The mental element defined in English law is useful in determining mens rea but does not limit the scope of the offence in Jersey.

Citation
[1993] JLR 17
Parties
Applicant: Davison; Respondent: Attorney General
Jurisdiction
Jersey
Judgment Date
21 January 1993
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Judgment
Outcome
appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Larceny, Definition of Larceny, Mens Rea
Criminal Law Larceny Definition of Larceny Mens Rea

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 1 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Davison

Applicant

Attorney General

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 What constitutes larceny at common law in Jersey?
  2. 2 Is the definition of larceny in Jersey wider than under the English Larceny Act 1916?
  3. 3 Is the mental element (mens rea) of the English offence relevant to Jersey law?

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that the definition of larceny at common law in Jersey is broader than under the English Larceny Act 1916, and is not restricted by the English statute. The mental element defined in English law is useful in determining mens rea but does not limit the scope of the offence in Jersey.

Court Disposition

appeal dismissed