Introduction
The House of Lords' decision in R v Gomez [1993] AC 442 altered how courts understand appropriation under the Theft Act 1968. This case established that an act can be appropriation even if the owner agrees to transfer property, when that agreement is based on falsehoods. The judgment clarified that appropriation does not require acting against the owner’s rights. By removing this requirement, Gomez enabled wider application of the law to various deceptive property transfers. This ruling has influenced many theft cases and remains a key part of property law in England and Wales.
Appropriation and the Absence of Adverse Interference
Earlier cases like R v Morris [1984] AC 320 had indicated that appropriation required acting against the owner’s rights. This created challenges in fraud cases where the owner appeared to agree to the transfer. Gomez rejected this approach, stating that taking rights over property, even with consent secured through deception, qualifies as appropriation. This change broadened the scope of the Theft Act 1968.
The Facts of R v Gomez
A shop assistant manager agreed to accept stolen cheques as payment for goods. He misled the shop manager about the cheques’ validity to obtain approval for the sale. The House of Lords ruled the assistant manager’s actions were appropriation because the manager’s consent depended on untrue claims. The court stressed that assuming ownership rights is decisive, regardless of the owner’s apparent agreement.
The Impact of Lawrence v Metropolitan Police Commissioner
The House of Lords in Gomez drew on Lawrence v Metropolitan Police Commissioner [1972] AC 626. In Lawrence, a taxi driver took extra money from a student’s wallet after the student gave it to him. The court ruled this was theft, despite partial consent. Gomez extended this reasoning to cases where deception produces consent.
Subsequent Case Law and Academic Analysis
Gomez shaped later theft cases. R v Hinks [2001] 2 AC 241 ruled that even gifts could be theft if obtained dishonestly. This expanded Gomez to further widen the concept of appropriation. Scholars have discussed whether this broad interpretation risks confusing civil and criminal law or imposing overly strict liability. Debates continue about how to define appropriation and deception.
Practical Implications and Examples
Gomez has clear real-world consequences. For instance, selling a counterfeit painting as authentic leads the buyer to consent to buy it. Under Gomez, this is appropriation because the buyer’s consent rests on the fraud. Similar issues arise in online scams where deception enables property transfers.
Conclusion
R v Gomez reworked the definition of appropriation under the Theft Act 1968, confirming that consent gained through deception still qualifies as appropriation. The decision built on Lawrence and informed later cases like Hinks. While some contend the wide definition may go too far, Gomez stays central to theft law, ensuring deceptive property transfers are addressed. The case shows that true consent is key in property transactions and illustrates how falsehoods can result in criminal responsibility. It remains a leading authority in theft law.
