LAW

Published on
KembaraXtra-Case Law-Low v Blease (1973)
Case Citation: Low v Blease (1973) QBD
Key Facts:
  • The Defendant (D) entered premises as a trespasser.
  • D made a telephone call from the premises.
  • D was convicted of burglary under s 9(1)(b) of the Theft Act 1968.
  • The conviction was based on the premise that D had stolen electricity by using the telephone.
Legal Issue:
  • Is electricity considered "property" for the purposes of theft under the Theft Act 1968?
Holding:
  • No. Electricity is not property for the purposes of theft under the Theft Act 1968.
Significance:
  • This case clarifies the definition of "property" within the context of theft. It establishes that electricity does not fall under this definition.
Further Consideration:
  • What other offence in the Theft Act 1968 addresses the issue of unauthorized use or "stealing" of electricity? (See s.13 Theft Act 1968 - Abstracting of Electricity)​
Picture
0 Comments

Author

Learn the fact about law