Appropriate

• Appropriation

  -s.3

  -assume rights of owner 

  -demonstrated in R v vinall and pitman v Hehl 

  -enough to show assumption of any rights R v morris 

  -appropriation is " any assumption by a person of the rights of an owner amounts to an appropriation and this includes where he has come by the property (innocently or not) without stealing it any later assumptions of a right to it by keeping or dealing with it as an owner"
• Consent to appropriation

  -cases where defendant got consent to take but still found guilty 

  -Lawrence v commissioner for metropolitan and R v Gomez 

  -depends on factors e.g dishonestly
• Consent to appropriation without deception

  -did decision in Gomez also apply if given consent without any deception 

  -raised in R v hinks 

  -depends on if ordinary member public see act as dishonest
• Appropriation s.3 when does the appropriation take place

  Gomez-appropriation viewed as occurring at one specific point in time 

  -case of vinall the later appropriation of abandon bike is more relevant as this shows intention to deprive 

  -further illustrated in R c atakpu and Abraham's 

  -shows appropriation occurs the first time a person assumes the right of the owner
• Was there a later assumption of rights

  -assumption can take place when a defendant acquires goods innocently and later assumes right of owner 

  -keeping or dealing