11.   The accused did not have the intention permanently to deprive at the relevant time.

12.   It should be noted that the accused would have had no defence to a charge of obtaining property by deception by switching the price labels.

13.   It was no defence that the accused had a good motive, namely to stop the car obstructing him.

14.   The test is subjective, and it does not matter whether the accused actually had authority or consent.

15.   The accused had no insurance.

16.   The accused had petrol put into the tank of his car.

17.   There was a representation that the accused had actual authority to make a contract with the shop and that the bank would honour the card.

18.   The accused need not have an intent to cause financial loss or make a gain.

19.   Certainly in ordinary language the accused has not secured the remission of liability because the victim does not remit the debt in these circumstances.

20.   The Court of Appeal held that the accused had a duty to provide information as to the status of his patients.