Hi!
Hate to be a pain but could anyone possibly throw some ideas at me/pointers for an essay im writing.
The jury, in determining whether an individual has acted dishonestly for (in relation to theft), should firstly consider whether the individual has acted dishonestly by the standards of "ordinary and honest" people
-if they find he has, then
they need to consider whether the individual himself must have realised what he was doing was by those standards- dishonest.”
Is this accurate in regards to the state of the law today? Should this be the case?
Thanks a lot either way.