Example sentences of "1(1) of [art] " in BNC.
Next page| No | Sentence |
|---|---|
| 1 | The respondent was tried for an offence contrary to s 2(1) of the Computer Misuse Act 1990 , having secured unauthorised access to a computer in contravention of s 1(1) of the 1990 Act with intent to commit a further offence of false accounting . |
| 2 | In due course , he was convicted , under Section 1(1) of the Criminal Attempts Act 1981 , of attempting to obtain services , that is credit facilities for hire-purchase purposes , by deception . |
| 3 | The Comptroller and Auditor General , appointed by the Crown on a resolution of the House of Commons by virtue of section 1(1) of the National Audit Act 1983 has two major functions : ( a ) to ensure that all money paid out of the government accounts has been properly authorised and is properly applied ; and ( b ) to examine the accounts of the , various government departments . |
| 4 | Section 1(1) of the Law Reform ( Contributory Negligence ) Act 1945 states : |
| 5 | Indeed they were found when Parliament enacted section 1(1) of the Official Secrets Act 1989 : |
| 6 | In the Commission 's view , the residence requirement for shareholders was also contrary to article 1(1) of the First Directive of 11 May 1960 for the implementation of article 67 of the E.E.C . |
| 7 | Member states were bound by article 1(1) of the Directive to ‘ grant all foreign exchange authorisations required for the conclusion or performance of transactions or for transfers between residents of member states in respect of ’ such capital movements . |
| 8 | They were subsequently charged , inter alia , with offences under section 1(1) of the Criminal Law Act 1977 and section 15(1) of the Theft Act 1968 . |
| 9 | The judge , concluding that the court 's paramount consideration on such an application was the children 's welfare , in accordance with section 1(1) of the Act , and that its power to interfere with the local authority 's proposals for the children was not confined to exceptional circumstances , granted the foster mother leave to apply for residence orders in respect of the children . |
| 10 | He was tried on , inter alia , a count charging an offence contrary to section 2(1) of the Computer Misuse Act 1990by securing unauthorised access to a computer , in contravention of section 1(1) of the Act of 1990 , with intent to commit a further offence of false accounting . |
| 11 | The Attorney-General referred to the Court of Appeal under section 36 of the Criminal Justice Act 1972 the question whether , in order for a person to commit an offence under section 1(1) of the Act of 1990 the computer which the person caused to perform any function with the required intent had to be a different computer from the one into which he intended to secure unauthorised access to any program or data held therein . |
| 12 | ‘ The point of law referred for consideration by the court is : in order for a person to commit an offence under section 1(1) of the Computer Misuse Act 1990 does the computer which the person causes to perform any function with the required intent have to be a different computer to the one into which he intends to secure unauthorised access to any program or data held there ? |
| 13 | ‘ Particulars of Offence [ The respondent ] on 17 September 1990 secured unauthorised access to a computer in contravention of section 1(1) of the Computer Misuse Act 1990 with intent to commit a further offence , namely , false accounting contrary to section 17(1) ( a ) of the Theft Act 1968 . |
| 14 | ‘ It is submitted : ( i ) the judge erred in law in his ruling on count 1 ; ( ii ) for an offence to be committed under section 1(1) of the Act there does not have to be the use by the offender of one computer with intent to secure unauthorised access into another computer ; ( iii ) there is no ambiguity in the wording of section 1(1) ( a ) of the Act which clearly refers to an intent to secure access to any program or data held in any computer ; ( iv ) section 17(2) and ( 3 ) are applicable to the alleged actions of the respondent in this case ; ( v ) the Act has been drafted so as to deal with the person who misuses a computer to which he has direct ( but unauthorised ) access , as well as a computer into which he is able to secure indirect access by operating another computer . ’ |
| 15 | ‘ In order for a person to commit an offence under section 1(1) of the Computer Misuse Act 1990 does the computer which the person causes to perform any function with the required intent have to be a different computer from the one into which he intends to secure unauthorised access to any program or data held therein ? |
| 16 | It is submitted by Mr. Moses that , for an offence to be committed under section 1(1) of the Act , there does not have to be use by the offender of one computer with intent to secure unauthorised access into another computer . |
| 17 | Section 1(1) of the Murder ( Abolition of Death Penalty ) Act 1965 abolished the death penalty for murder and substituted for it imprisonment for life . |
| 18 | On the third party 's summons seeking to have the third party notice struck out , pursuant to R.S.C. , Ord. 18 , r. 19 or the inherent jurisdiction of the court , the master held that the claim was capable of falling within section 1(1) of the Civil Liability ( Contribution ) Act 1978and dismissed the application . |
| 19 | Held , dismissing the appeal , that the liability imposed under section 1(1) of the Act of 1978 was intended by Parliament , by virtue of section 6(1) of the Act , to enable claims for contribution to be made as between parties who had no claim for contribution under the general law , and applied whenever a plaintiff had a cause of action against a third party in respect of the same damage as gave rise to his cause of action against the defendant , irrespective of the legal basis of the liability ; and that , accordingly , the defence of ex turpi causa non oritur actio could not be relied upon in answer to a claim for contribution under the Act ; and that , since there was sufficient possibility of the third party being found liable for some part of the plaintiffs ' loss , there were no grounds for striking out the third party notice ( post , pp. 1022H — 1023A , G–H , 1024G — 1025D ) . |
| 20 | Before the master the attack on the third party notice was , I understand , based on somewhat technical issues , such as the want of particularity in the allegations made against the third party , the fact that there is no assertion that he was part of the conspiracy in which the third defendant is said to have joined and an argument that the third defendant and the third party are not on any view liable to the plaintiffs in respect of the same damage , so that the case is not within section 1(1) of the Civil Liability ( Contribution ) Act 1978 , which I shall mention in some detail later . |
| 21 | He was charged with theft contrary to section 1(1) of the Theft Act 1968 . |
| 22 | Held , allowing the appeal ( Lord Lowry dissenting ) , that an act expressly or impliedly authorised by the owner of goods or consented to by him could amount to an appropriation of the goods within section 1(1) of the Theft Act 1968 where such authority or consent had been obtained by deception ; and that , accordingly , the defendant had been rightly convicted of theft ( post , pp. 1073F , 1076G–H , 1080C–F , 1081C–D , 1109F , 1111E ) . |
| 23 | ‘ When theft is alleged and that which is alleged to be stolen passes to the defendant with the consent of the owner , but that has been obtained by a false representation , has ( a ) an appropriation within the meaning of section 1(1) of the Theft Act 1968 taken place , or ( b ) must such a passing of property necessarily involve an element of adverse inference with or usurpation of some right of the owner ? |
| 24 | The defendant , Ballay and another employee of the shop , named Rai , were arrested and later tried on an indictment the fourth and fifth counts in which charged all three with theft contrary to section 1(1) of the Theft Act 1968 in respect of the two transactions . |
| 25 | After evidence had been led for the prosecution counsel for the defendant submitted that there was no case to answer on the theft charges because the manager of the shop had authorised the transactions , so that there had been no appropriation within the meaning of section 1(1) of the Act . |
| 26 | ‘ When theft is alleged and that which is alleged to be stolen passes to the defendant with the consent of the owner , but that has been obtained by a false representation , has ( a ) an appropriation within the meaning of section 1(1) of the Theft Act 1968 taken place , or ( b ) must such a passing of property necessarily involve an element of adverse inference with or usurpation of some right of the owner ? |
| 27 | ‘ The appellant was convicted on 2 December 1969 of theft contrary to section 1(1) of the Theft Act 1968 . |
| 28 | ‘ ( 1 ) Whether section 1(1) of the Theft Act 1968 is to be construed as though it contained the words ‘ without the consent of the owner ’ or words to that effect and ( 2 ) Whether the provisions of section 15(1) and of section 1(1) of the Theft Act 1968 are mutually exclusive in the sense that if the facts proved would justify a conviction under section 15(1) there can not lawfully be a conviction under section 1(1) on those facts . |
| 29 | ‘ ( 1 ) Whether section 1(1) of the Theft Act 1968 is to be construed as though it contained the words ‘ without the consent of the owner ’ or words to that effect and ( 2 ) Whether the provisions of section 15(1) and of section 1(1) of the Theft Act 1968 are mutually exclusive in the sense that if the facts proved would justify a conviction under section 15(1) there can not lawfully be a conviction under section 1(1) on those facts . |
| 30 | ‘ These words are not included in section 1(1) of the Theft Act , but the appellant contended that the subsection should be construed as if they were , as if they appeared after the words ‘ appropriates . ’ |