11.2 The ultimate probanda We begin with the end in mind which is the UP, which can also be said to be level 1. This is the matter to be proved to decide the issue. In this current case it is level 1: Mary stole a £20 note contrary to s 1 of the Theft Act 1968. This is expressed on the chart as: Figure 7.29: the (UP), level 1 7.11.3 The penultimate probanda The second level, as we are working backwards, is the PP, the elements that have to be proved to show that the UP is correct (in other words, the elements of the legal rule, in this case of s 1 of the Theft Act 1968). Again we have worked on this and know it. Which is set out as follows.

DOI link for 11.2 The ultimate probanda We begin with the end in mind which is the UP, which can also be said to be level 1. This is the matter to be proved to decide the issue. In this current case it is level 1: Mary stole a £20 note contrary to s 1 of the Theft Act 1968. This is expressed on the chart as: Figure 7.29: the (UP), level 1 7.11.3 The penultimate probanda The second level, as we are working backwards, is the PP, the elements that have to be proved to show that the UP is correct (in other words, the elements of the legal rule, in this case of s 1 of the Theft Act 1968). Again we have worked on this and know it. Which is set out as follows.

11.2 The ultimate probanda We begin with the end in mind which is the UP, which can also be said to be level 1. This is the matter to be proved to decide the issue. In this current case it is level 1: Mary stole a £20 note contrary to s 1 of the Theft Act 1968. This is expressed on the chart as: Figure 7.29: the (UP), level 1 7.11.3 The penultimate probanda The second level, as we are working backwards, is the PP, the elements that have to be proved to show that the UP is correct (in other words, the elements of the legal rule, in this case of s 1 of the Theft Act 1968). Again we have worked on this and know it. Which is set out as follows.