[2010] EWCA Crim 370

In deciding in a non-disclosure case whether there had been an omission within the meaning of the words "omits a material particular" in the Theft Act 1968 s.17(2)(b), the omission would be material if it had the effect that the document was liable to mislead in a significant way, and that would depend on the nature of the document and the context. The test was objective, and a good way to convey that to the jury would be to say that it was for the jury to judge for themselves, on the facts of the case, whether they thought the omission was significant.

CA (Crim Div) (Toulson LJ, Cox J, Judge Barker QC (Common Serjeant of London))

02/03/2010