5 THEFT 1: THE THEFT ACT
A
R v Gomez [1993] AC 442, HL Crime: Theft – Dishonest appropriation.
Shop employee obtained authority by deceit to supply customer with goods against stolen cheques knowing that cheques were stolen.
Facts: The defendant, the assistant manager of a shop, was approached by a customer who wanted to acquire goods in exchange for two stolen cheques. Knowing that the cheques were stolen, the defendant (the assistant manager) deceived the shop manager into authorizing the sale of the goods to the customer in exchange for the cheques.
Statute: Theft Act 1968, sections 1(1), 3(1) Judicial interpretation: appropriation
Judgment: Court of first instance: convicted defendant of theft. Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): quashed conviction. House of Lords, on appeal by the Crown: allowed appeal – defendant rightly convicted of theft.
Reasons: An act expressly or impliedly authorized by the owner of goods or consented to by him could amount to an appropriation of the goods within section 1(1) of the Theft Act 1968 where such authority or consent had been obtained by deception.
B
R v Lawrence [1972] AC 626, HL Crime: Theft – Dishonest appropriation.
Taxi driver obtained a much higher fare than was justified.
Facts: Lawrence was a taxi driver. A foreign student hailed his cab and asked to be taken to a hotel. The real fare was approximately 30 pence. The passenger gave him a pound (100 pence) but Lawrence said that it was not enough. The passenger then offered Lawrence his wallet, and asked him to take the right amount. He took six pounds, which was about 20 times as much as the fare justified.
Statute: Theft Act 1968, section 1 Judicial interpretation: appropriation
Judgment: Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): found defendant guilty of theft.
Reasons: Lawrence’s defence was that he had not appropriated any money within the terms of the Theft Act 1968, because – although he may have been dishonest – the full conditions for guilt (‘dishonest appropriation’) were not met. The Court of Appeal, however, decided that appropriation does not require a lack of consent to be part of the actus reus of crime.
43
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56 |
Page 57 |
Page 58 |
Page 59 |
Page 60 |
Page 61 |
Page 62 |
Page 63 |
Page 64 |
Page 65 |
Page 66 |
Page 67 |
Page 68 |
Page 69 |
Page 70 |
Page 71 |
Page 72 |
Page 73 |
Page 74 |
Page 75 |
Page 76 |
Page 77 |
Page 78 |
Page 79 |
Page 80 |
Page 81 |
Page 82 |
Page 83 |
Page 84 |
Page 85 |
Page 86 |
Page 87 |
Page 88 |
Page 89 |
Page 90 |
Page 91 |
Page 92 |
Page 93 |
Page 94 |
Page 95 |
Page 96 |
Page 97 |
Page 98 |
Page 99 |
Page 100 |
Page 101 |
Page 102 |
Page 103 |
Page 104 |
Page 105 |
Page 106 |
Page 107 |
Page 108 |
Page 109 |
Page 110 |
Page 111 |
Page 112 |
Page 113 |
Page 114 |
Page 115 |
Page 116 |
Page 117 |
Page 118 |
Page 119 |
Page 120 |
Page 121 |
Page 122 |
Page 123 |
Page 124 |
Page 125 |
Page 126 |
Page 127 |
Page 128 |
Page 129 |
Page 130 |
Page 131 |
Page 132 |
Page 133 |
Page 134 |
Page 135 |
Page 136 |
Page 137 |
Page 138 |
Page 139
