I know. I am the one who told you that. And the rule is that when there is a list with a single adjective in front, an adjunct noun is treated exactly as any other noun.
If you take the phrase:
'We bought new plates and coffee cups'
It would be assumed by any rational person that both the plates and the coffee cups were new.
New is the adjective and coffee is the adjunct noun.
In that sentence, yes. But that is a completely different sentence to that used by HWM.
He said "aggravated burglary and theft of cars".
"Aggravated" is an oxymoron of "theft" because theft excludes the use of violence or force.
There's one reason why "aggravated" can not have included "theft"
Now as the court of Appeal said there is no rule that an adjective must apply to al the nouns in a list, it's depends on the context.
As I've shown above the context makes it abundantly clear that "aggravated" cannot apply to "theft".
In addition you are misquoting the definition of a noun adjunct. A noun adjunct is a noun acting as an adjective. It does not join together with the other noun to make a new noun. What you are describing is a compound noun, as in shoeshine, raindrop, etc. These are not nouns adjunct.
A noun adjunct is as I've said, a noun acting as an adjective and describing the other noun, i.e modifying it or differentiating it from other types of that noun, as in theft of cars, and other types of theft.
So that is the second reason why the word "aggravated "does not apply to the "theft of cars".
