Ghosh [1982] QB 1053; 2 All ER 689 a two point test was developed. Two questions had to be asked: (1) Was what was done dishonest according to the ordinary standards of reasonable and honest people? If the answer is ‘no’ the defendant is not guilty as there is no proved dishonesty and a vital element of the actus reus is unproved. If the answer is ‘yes’ then the second question has to be asked, (2) Did the defendant realise that reasonable and honest people regard what he did as dishonest? If the answer is yes then the defendant is guilty. In our case Mary may well find that the answer to the first question would come in as ‘no’ and she escapes liability. Should it not, the second question should be answered in the negative and she still escapes liability. Most reasonable and honest people would regard the taking of the money in the precise circumstances reasonable and not dishonest. The discussion of the issue of permanent deprivation as a core aspect of the mens rea would next be discussed. However, this demonstration is to indicate the relation ship between factual and legal analysis and the way in which factual analysis facilitates legal analysis and argument construction. The standard legal problem question (which will be discussed in Chapter 8) is of course less obviously liable to give the information required for a full factual analysis. However, in terms of knowing what to look out for at the level of facts and evidence, it allows the map of potential areas to be developed. 7.12 TASK: THE CASE OF R V JACK For those of you who would like to test your skills further there is another charting task with a set of witness statements in the fictitious case of R v Jack. The law applicable is again s1(1) of the Theft Act. (1) Construct your own Wigmore chart and keylist for the defence. (2) Use your chart to determine the strengths and weaknesses of the prosecution case. (3) What further evidence would be useful for either party. (4) Write out an argument for the prosecution to prove that Jack is guilty. (5) Write out an argument for the defence to prove that Jack is guilty. There is no necessarily correct answer, and the statements are provided as an opportunity for developing your skills in the area of factual analysis and argument construction either in or out of a classroom setting. 7.12.1 Statements relating to the case of R v Jack 7.12.1.1 R v Jack Statements for Wigmore Chart Jack has been charged with theft (contrary to s1(1) of the Theft Act 1968) of a shirt from the New Style Clothes Shop on 12 September. Below, you will find witness statements. Read them carefully and construct a modified Wigmore Chart for the defence.

DOI link for Ghosh [1982] QB 1053; 2 All ER 689 a two point test was developed. Two questions had to be asked: (1) Was what was done dishonest according to the ordinary standards of reasonable and honest people? If the answer is ‘no’ the defendant is not guilty as there is no proved dishonesty and a vital element of the actus reus is unproved. If the answer is ‘yes’ then the second question has to be asked, (2) Did the defendant realise that reasonable and honest people regard what he did as dishonest? If the answer is yes then the defendant is guilty. In our case Mary may well find that the answer to the first question would come in as ‘no’ and she escapes liability. Should it not, the second question should be answered in the negative and she still escapes liability. Most reasonable and honest people would regard the taking of the money in the precise circumstances reasonable and not dishonest. The discussion of the issue of permanent deprivation as a core aspect of the mens rea would next be discussed. However, this demonstration is to indicate the relation ship between factual and legal analysis and the way in which factual analysis facilitates legal analysis and argument construction. The standard legal problem question (which will be discussed in Chapter 8) is of course less obviously liable to give the information required for a full factual analysis. However, in terms of knowing what to look out for at the level of facts and evidence, it allows the map of potential areas to be developed. 7.12 TASK: THE CASE OF R V JACK For those of you who would like to test your skills further there is another charting task with a set of witness statements in the fictitious case of R v Jack. The law applicable is again s1(1) of the Theft Act. (1) Construct your own Wigmore chart and keylist for the defence. (2) Use your chart to determine the strengths and weaknesses of the prosecution case. (3) What further evidence would be useful for either party. (4) Write out an argument for the prosecution to prove that Jack is guilty. (5) Write out an argument for the defence to prove that Jack is guilty. There is no necessarily correct answer, and the statements are provided as an opportunity for developing your skills in the area of factual analysis and argument construction either in or out of a classroom setting. 7.12.1 Statements relating to the case of R v Jack 7.12.1.1 R v Jack Statements for Wigmore Chart Jack has been charged with theft (contrary to s1(1) of the Theft Act 1968) of a shirt from the New Style Clothes Shop on 12 September. Below, you will find witness statements. Read them carefully and construct a modified Wigmore Chart for the defence.

Ghosh [1982] QB 1053; 2 All ER 689 a two point test was developed. Two questions had to be asked: (1) Was what was done dishonest according to the ordinary standards of reasonable and honest people? If the answer is ‘no’ the defendant is not guilty as there is no proved dishonesty and a vital element of the actus reus is unproved. If the answer is ‘yes’ then the second question has to be asked, (2) Did the defendant realise that reasonable and honest people regard what he did as dishonest? If the answer is yes then the defendant is guilty. In our case Mary may well find that the answer to the first question would come in as ‘no’ and she escapes liability. Should it not, the second question should be answered in the negative and she still escapes liability. Most reasonable and honest people would regard the taking of the money in the precise circumstances reasonable and not dishonest. The discussion of the issue of permanent deprivation as a core aspect of the mens rea would next be discussed. However, this demonstration is to indicate the relation ship between factual and legal analysis and the way in which factual analysis facilitates legal analysis and argument construction. The standard legal problem question (which will be discussed in Chapter 8) is of course less obviously liable to give the information required for a full factual analysis. However, in terms of knowing what to look out for at the level of facts and evidence, it allows the map of potential areas to be developed. 7.12 TASK: THE CASE OF R V JACK For those of you who would like to test your skills further there is another charting task with a set of witness statements in the fictitious case of R v Jack. The law applicable is again s1(1) of the Theft Act. (1) Construct your own Wigmore chart and keylist for the defence. (2) Use your chart to determine the strengths and weaknesses of the prosecution case. (3) What further evidence would be useful for either party. (4) Write out an argument for the prosecution to prove that Jack is guilty. (5) Write out an argument for the defence to prove that Jack is guilty. There is no necessarily correct answer, and the statements are provided as an opportunity for developing your skills in the area of factual analysis and argument construction either in or out of a classroom setting. 7.12.1 Statements relating to the case of R v Jack 7.12.1.1 R v Jack Statements for Wigmore Chart Jack has been charged with theft (contrary to s1(1) of the Theft Act 1968) of a shirt from the New Style Clothes Shop on 12 September. Below, you will find witness statements. Read them carefully and construct a modified Wigmore Chart for the defence.