Appropriation over a number of years has been difficult to nail down and there are a several problematic areas that have come to pass. The term of ‘any assumption by a person of the rights of an owner’ does not specify weather the taking could be consented to or not. In the case of Morris 1983 3 ALL ER 288 they held it was sufficient to assume any one of the rights of an owner, and did not necessarily have to be all of them. The assumption of rights has to be adverse to the owner and without his consent. Lord Roskill stated in this case any of the rights assumed is enough for prosecution. The word ‘adverse’ suggested in this case that if the owner consented to the taking then there was no appropriation. The way the decided the case left the area of taking with consent wider than necessary.
When a shopper places goods in her basket it is an appropriation. But it depends on weather it is an honest appropriation or a dishonest one. If it is an honest appropriation no theft has been committed, as you do not have to just leave the building in order o commit theft. Leaving the building or make off without payment is simply proof that the shopper committed theft. A dishonest appropriation can constitute theft if the shopper knows that they will leave without paying, even if the supermarket consents to the appropriation of goods off the shelf. There is an assumption of rights of the owner, which is to purchase before leaving the store (in reference to Lawrence)
As the Theft Act did not recognize weather appropriation could occur with or without the owner’s consent the courts had to resolve this problem. In Lawrence [1971] 2 All ER 1253 HL the courts held that even the foreigner held his wallet out and permitted the taxi driver to take his money it amounted to appropriation even though it was consented. The court said there was a clear appropriation by s 3 (1) of the Theft Act 1968 and that there was an assumption of rights. Morris and Lawrence had several conflicting issues and there was considerable confusion between them as it was to reconcile the two lines of the cases. The case of Morris was later decided that there were a number of inconsistencies in the case and went more advance than was necessary in its decision and the case of Lawrence should be preferred. This confusion was determined in the case of Gomez; it held that the decision in the case of Morris was incorrect. The court in Gomez decided that consent of the owner is not required for an appropriation. This case establishes the meaning of appropriation and clears up the decisions of previous cases of Lawrence and Morris.
In Gomez there are many implications the main one is being charged with theft when the charge should have been obtaining property by deception. In Lawrence the court said it is still theft even if the victim consents to it: so can assume the rights of the owner even though the owner allowed you to. The case of R v Hinks (2000) reinforced he position in Gomez hat appropriation was a neutral word within the meaning of theft act and even the acquisition of good title or legitimate ownership, was capable to amounting to appropriation. The court also said there can be theft of a gift if the recipient is dishonest. S 3(2) of the Theft Act provides for appropriation where the original possession of property was innocent. Although if the original possession of the goods was not innocent, later assumption of the same goods would not be theft according to R v Atakpu [1993]. In this case the defendant hired cars with false documents, which amounted to an appropriation.
In conclusion the law in this area is no that satisfied. The cases of Morris and Gomez have widened the spectrum. The result in Gomez may have conflicted with civil law. As in Hinks the court held the recipient of a valid gift might be said to have appropriated the gift. Most of the elements under s15 of the theft Act are identical to theft. The difference is deception is needed in an s 15 offences. Since Gomez almost all cases of obtaining goods by deception will also be thefts.
