R v Gomez
An act can be an appropriation even if it is done with the owner's consent, including consent obtained by deception.
Facts
Mr Gomez was an assistant manager of an electrical goods shop. Two accomplices wanted to buy goods worth about £17,000 with stolen building society cheques. Mr Gomez persuaded the manager to authorise the sale, telling him that the cheques were as good as cash. The cheques were dishonoured. Mr Gomez was convicted of theft. He argued that there was no appropriation, because the manager had consented to the transfer of the goods, and that he should have been charged with obtaining property by deception instead.
Legal principle
The House of Lords upheld the conviction by a majority. Lord Keith said that, following Lawrence, an act may be an appropriation even if it is done with the owner's consent, whether or not that consent was obtained by deception. The obiter statement in Morris that appropriation requires an adverse interference with the owner's rights was wrong. Any assumption by a person of the rights of an owner amounts to an appropriation, and the question of whether the appropriation was theft depends on dishonesty. Lord Lowry dissented.
Related cases on theft, robbery, burglary and fraud
- Attorney General's Reference (No 1 of 1983) [1985] QB 182
- Corcoran v Anderton (1980) 71 Cr App R 104
- Ivey v Genting Casinos (UK) Ltd [2017] UKSC 67, [2018] AC 391
- Lawrence v Metropolitan Police Commissioner [1972] AC 626
- Oxford v Moss (1979) 68 Cr App R 183
- R v Barton and Booth [2020] EWCA Crim 575, [2021] QB 685
- R v Collins [1973] QB 100
- R v Ghosh [1982] QB 1053
Studying criminal law? Our tutors help you understand and apply cases like this in essays, problem questions and exams. Request a quote or browse our law notes.
This summary is for study and revision and is not legal advice. Although our case summaries are checked for accuracy, we do not guarantee that they are free from errors or omissions. Always read the full judgment for the court's reasoning.
