## Facts

- The defendant, a shop assistant manager, agreed to accept stolen cheques as payment for goods.
- He misled the shop manager by falsely claiming the cheques were valid, thereby securing the manager’s approval for the sale.
- The manager's consent to the transaction was based on the false representation regarding the cheques’ validity.
- The House of Lords considered whether this amounted to appropriation within the meaning of the Theft Act 1968.

## Issues

1. Does appropriation under the Theft Act 1968 require adverse interference with or usurpation of the owner’s rights?
2. Can a defendant appropriate property when the owner’s consent is obtained by deception?
3. How should the definition of appropriation be applied in cases involving consent secured through falsehoods?

## Decision

- The House of Lords held that appropriation can occur even where the owner apparently consents to the transfer, if such consent results from deception.
- It was determined that assuming the rights of an owner is sufficient for appropriation under the Theft Act 1968, regardless of the owner’s actual agreement.
- The court rejected the previous position established in R v Morris, which required adverse action against the owner’s rights for appropriation to occur.
- The decision broadened the meaning of appropriation in the context of theft.

## Legal Principles

- Appropriation does not require the act to be against the owner’s interests if consent is obtained through deception.
- Deceptively inducing the owner to consent equates to an appropriation under the Theft Act 1968.
- The ruling relied on the precedent set in Lawrence v Metropolitan Police Commissioner, extending its application to situations where deception produces consent.
- Following Gomez, subsequent cases such as R v Hinks have interpreted even gifts as appropriation where dishonesty is present.

## Conclusion

R v Gomez clarified that appropriation under the Theft Act 1968 can include instances where the owner’s consent to transfer property is obtained by deception, thus expanding the scope of liability for theft to cover a wider range of deceptive property transfers and establishing a central principle in the law of theft.


R v Gomez [1993] AC 442 (HL)