Appropriation

• Appropriation is found in section 3 of the Theft Act 1968
• Section 3(1)


  Any assumption by a person of the rights of an owner amounts to an appropriation, and this includes, where has come by the property (innocently or not) without stealing it, any later assumption of a right to it by keeping or dealing with it as owner
• Section 3(2)


  Where property or a right or interest in property is or purports to be transferred for value to a person acting in good faith, no later assumption by him of rights which he believed himself to be acquiring shall. by reason of any defect in the transferor's title, amount to theft of the property
• What year was Lawrence v MPC

  1972
• Lawrence v MPC: An italian student arrived in London at Victoria Station and the defendant, the taxi driver, took him to Ladbroke Grove. The student got into the taxi and gave him a £1 note, but the defendant said it was not enough and took another £6, the correct lawful fare was approximately 10 shillings (s) and 6 sixpence (d)
• The Lords held that the defendant was rightly charged and convicted under section 1(1), since there were present the four elements required by it
• The four elements required by section 1(1) are:

  1. a dishonest
  2. appropriation
  3. of property belonging to another
  4. with intention of permanently depriving the owner of it
• Lawrence v MPC: Section 1(1) is not to be construed as though it contained "without the consent of the owner" and accordingly it is not necessary for the prosecution to prove that the taking was without his consent
• Lawrence v MPC: The Theft Act 1968 greatly simplified the law relating to theft and that previously it was necessary to prove that the property alleged to have been stolen was taken "without the consent of the owner" (Larceny Act 1916, section 1(1))
• Lawrence v MPC: proof that there was consent does not suffice to show that there was not dishonesty (in this case).
• What year was Morris in?

  1984
• Morris (1984): The defendant took goods from the shelves of a supermarket and replaced the price labels attached to them with labels showing lesser prices. At the check-out point he paid the lesser prices
• Morris (1984): on the true construction of ss 1(1) and 3(1) of the Theft Act 1968, it was sufficient to establish an appropriation, for the prosecution to prove an assumption by the defendant of any of the rights of the owner of the goods
• Morris (1984): Lord Roskill concluded that "there is a dishonesty appropriation. . .where by the substitution of a price label. . .a defendant either by that act alone or by that act in conjunction with another act. . . .adversely interferes with or usurps the right of the owner to ensure that the goods concerned are sold and paid for at that greater price."
• What years was DPP v Gomez

  1992
• Gomez (1992): The defendant, the assistant manager of a shop, was approached by a customer who wanted to acquire goods in exchange for two stolen checks. Knowing that the cheques were stolen, the defendant deceived the shop manager into authorising the sale of the goods to the customer in exchange for the cheques.
• Gomez (1992): Held (Lord Lowry dissenting), that an act expressly or impliedly authorised by the owner of goods or consented to him could amount to an appropriation of the goods within section 1(1) where such authority or consent had been obtained by deception
• Gomez (1992): Gomez worked at a shop trading by retail in electrical goods. He was asked by an acquaintance called Jit Ballay to supply goods from the shop and to accept payment by two stolen building society cheques, one for £7950 and the other for £9250
• Gomez (1992): Lord Keith commenting on Lord Muskill's judgement in Gomez finds that the switching of price labels itself is an assumption of one of the rights of the owner, whether or not it is accompanied by some other act
• Morris (1984): Lord Roskill said that in the context of section 3(1) the concept of appropriation, in his view, involves an act not expressly or impliedly authorised by the owner but an act of adverse interference with our usurpation of those rights
• Gomez (1992): Lord Lowry- answers no to the question that when theft is alleged and that which is alleged to be stolen passes to the defendant with the consent of the owner by a false representation, has an appropriation within the meaning of section 1(1) occured
• Gomez (1992): Lord Lowry states that appropriating property is a one-sided act, done without the consent or authority of the owner. And, if the owner consents to transfer property to the offender or to a third party, the offender does not appropriate the property, even if the owner's consent has been obtained by fraud
• What Year was R v Atakpu

  1993
• Atakpu (1993): The appellants started a scheme to hire expensive motor cars abroad, have them driven into the UK and then, after altering the vehicles, sell them on to unsuspecting purchasers.
• Atakpu (1993): They obtained false passports and driving licenses in England and used those documents to hire two cars in Frankfurt and one in Brussels. The cars were put on the ferry to Dover.
• Atakpu (1993): On their arrival in England, still within the hiring period, they were stopped by customs officers and arrested and charged with conspiracy to steal. They were convicted.
• Atakpu (1993): They appealed on the ground that the crime, having been committed outside the jurisdiction, was not triable in England, since no 'appropriation' amounting to theft within section 3(1) of the Theft Act 1968 had taken place in England
• Atakpu (1993): If a person steals property abroad and brings it to England for dishonest gain, the theft was nevertheless committed abroad and he could not be charged with theft in England.
• Professor Glanville Williams observes that when a man steals a watch and sells it two weeks later, he is not guilty of a second theft when he sells it. Otherwise, in theory, a thief could be convicted of a theft of a silver tea pot every time he uses it to make tea
• Atakpu (1993): if a person comes by the property by stealing it, his later dealing with the property is not included among the assumptions of the right of an owner which amount to an appropriation within the amning of section 3(1)
• Atakpu (1993): If goods have once been stolen, even if abroad, they cannot be stolen again by the same thief exercising the same or other rights of ownership over the property
• Atakpu (1993): It is a matter for the jury to decide that the appropriation can continue for so long as the thief can sensibly be regarded as in the act of stealing- the editors of Smith Hogan Criminal law also suggest that the test should be whether the thief is still "on the job"
• What year was Hinks

  2000
• In Hinks (2000) what did the Lords warn a narrower construction of section 3(1) could mean

  an unwarranted restriction of the scope of the law of theft and complicate fair and effective prosecution
• Hinks (2000): what was the point of law of general public importance

  whether the acquisition of an indefeasible title to property is capable of amounting to an appropriation of property belonging to another for the purposes of section 1(1) of the Theft Act 1968
• Hinks (2000): The appellant was friendly with an older (53y/o) man, John Dolphin. She described herself as the main carer for him. From April to November 1996, Dolphin withdrew sums totaling around £60,000 from his building society account, which were deposited in the appellant's account
• Hinks (2000): Towards the end of the period, Dolphin has lost most of his savings and money inherited from his father
• What was the range of Mr. Dolphin's IQ and what is the average

  70 to 80, compared to the average which is 90 to 110
• Gomez (1993): Gives effect to section 3(1) by treating appropriation as a neutral word comprehending "any assumption by a person of the rights of an owner".
• What year is Briggs?

  2003