Introduction
The legal concept of appropriation, central to the offense of theft, concerns the assumption of ownership rights over property. Within the framework of the Theft Act 1968, appropriation is not limited to the outright taking of property; instead, it includes any assumption of the rights of the owner. A crucial technical principle is that an appropriation can occur even where the owner consents to the taking or transfer of property, provided that such consent is vitiated by dishonesty. This principle was established in R v Gomez [1993] AC 442, which overruled the earlier requirement for an 'adverse interference' with ownership rights as set out in R v Morris. R v Morris itself, while later overruled on the 'adverse interference' point, remains important because it clarified that assumption of any of the owner's rights, not necessarily all, can constitute appropriation. This clarification forms the basis for the charge of theft, provided the required element of dishonesty and intent to permanently deprive are also proven.
Understanding Appropriation Under the Theft Act 1968
The Theft Act 1968, s.1(1), establishes that a person is guilty of theft if they "dishonestly appropriate property belonging to another with the intention of permanently depriving the other of it." The actus reus of theft thus comprises the appropriation of property that belongs to another. R v Morris [1984] AC 320 provided a key interpretation of the meaning of "appropriation" within the context of this act. Specifically, the case considered whether the actions of the defendants in switching price labels on supermarket goods constituted an appropriation of the goods.
The Facts of R v Morris
In R v Morris, the defendants switched price labels on items in a supermarket, intending to pay a lower price for more expensive goods. The legal question was whether such an action constituted an "appropriation" of the goods, considering that the defendants did not physically remove the goods without authorization at this stage; the shop allowed customers to pick up items and go to the till, so they had the consent of the shop to do this. The case reached the House of Lords, which offered a definitive view on the issue of appropriation, clarifying that it is the assumption of "any of the rights of the owner".
Lord Roskill's Judgment in R v Morris
Lord Roskill, delivering the judgment for the House of Lords, concluded that the act of switching price labels was indeed an appropriation. The reasoning was that the defendants had assumed a right of the owner, specifically the right to determine the price at which goods are sold. It was held, "it is enough for the prosecution to prove the assumption of any of the rights of the owner, not all of the rights" and that appropriation is "an adverse interference with or usurpation" of those rights. This aspect of the judgment highlighted that the appropriation did not necessarily involve an outright taking of the goods, but rather, an assumption of control over an aspect of the goods that was reserved for the owner. This is a very significant step in making sure those who are acting unlawfully are able to be charged under the theft act, even if their actions are not what may generally be considered 'theft'.
Implications of R v Morris
The House of Lord’s decision in R v Morris significantly shaped the understanding of "appropriation" within the context of theft. It demonstrated that appropriation could occur before the actual removal of goods from a store or property. The act of interfering with the owner’s rights, such as the right to sell at a specific price, was itself an appropriation, even if the goods were still in the store and under the control of the supermarket. This is an extremely important aspect of the case, as it clarifies exactly when appropriation occurs in the context of the theft act. The judgment in R v Morris has led to various legal considerations including the possibility of multiple charges arising as a result of such an act.
The Overruling of R v Morris in R v Gomez
Although the judgment in R v Morris remained good law for several years, in R v Gomez [1993] AC 442, the House of Lords took a different position which ultimately overruled the earlier notion that appropriation requires adverse interference. In R v Gomez, the defendant, an assistant shop manager, fraudulently obtained goods using stolen cheques, with the consent of the shop manager to sell them, who did not know that the checks were stolen. The House of Lords held that appropriation could occur even where the owner consents to the transfer of property, provided the consent was obtained by a dishonest deception. This ruling overturned the requirement in R v Morris for an “adverse interference” with the owner’s rights. In essence, the principle in Gomez is that even if a person does not take the goods but is handed them with a vitiated consent, they are still appropriating them under the theft act, showing that appropriation includes a wider array of actions than was previously thought.
The Significance of Gomez
The decision in R v Gomez expanded the scope of appropriation beyond a mere physical taking or adverse interference. The case clarified that appropriation does not require the absence of consent from the owner, provided that the consent is dishonestly obtained. Instead, if the shop owner hands the stolen cheques to the cashier and says it is okay, this is still an act of theft, because the consent of the owner is vitiated due to the fact it was handed over under deception. This ruling is highly significant, as the House of Lords explicitly decided that R v Morris was no longer good law. The effect of this is that cases such as R v Hinks [2000] UKHL 53, are able to be considered under the theft act, where a carer accepts a gift which they were deceitful in attaining; this case, therefore, expanded the reach of the theft act considerably. The idea of adverse interference was an artificial construction which the courts recognised as unnecessary. This ruling was also more aligned with the previous precedent set in Lawrence v MPC [1972] AC 626, which held that appropriation could occur in circumstances where the victim hands over property and is therefore consenting, but is being dishonest in the acceptance of it.
The Relationship between R v Morris and R v Gomez
The relationship between R v Morris and R v Gomez is thus one of sequential legal development. While R v Morris established the key principle that appropriation is the assumption of any of the owner's rights, R v Gomez refined this concept by removing the requirement for adverse interference. The effect of these cases is that appropriation under the theft act is not simply the act of taking something, but any action that asserts ownership over another’s property, even if this has been done by deception. Both rulings confirm that when an individual does not have the consent of the owner, a theft may have occurred.
Legal Considerations
These cases taken together highlight several legal considerations. First, appropriation can take many forms, from the switching of price tags, as demonstrated in R v Morris to the receipt of property by dishonest means, as exemplified in R v Gomez. The scope of appropriation is, therefore, broad, and not limited to traditional notions of theft. Secondly, whilst appropriation itself is not necessarily unlawful, it is the combination of this with the dishonesty and the intent to permanently deprive which gives rise to the offense of theft under the Act. Thirdly, the decisions in Morris and Gomez together illustrate the capacity of case law to evolve, refine legal principles and remove inconsistencies in the law, as the definition of "appropriation" was refined over several decades. The effect of this is that judges have a better position from which to consider similar cases.
Key Terms and Concepts
- Appropriation: The assumption of any of the rights of an owner, including the right to control, use, and sell goods.
- Actus Reus: The physical or external element of a crime. In theft, it is the dishonest appropriation of property.
- Mens Rea: The mental element of a crime, which for theft includes dishonesty and the intention to permanently deprive.
- Jus Tertii: A legal defence that allows a defendant to argue that a third party has a better title or ownership of the disputed property than the claimant. This defence was abolished by the Torts (Interference with Goods) Act 1977.
LSI Keywords
Theft Act 1968, dishonesty, intention to permanently deprive, property, ownership, House of Lords, criminal law, case law, legal precedent, actus reus, mens rea, adverse interference, consent, legal rights.
Conclusion
The judgments in R v Morris and R v Gomez represent a significant development in understanding the concept of appropriation within the context of theft. Whilst R v Morris initially clarified that appropriation meant taking any of the owner's rights, the judgment was refined by the House of Lords in R v Gomez, where it was made clear that the definition did not require an adverse interference, so long as the actions were accompanied by dishonesty and the intention to permanently deprive the other party of their property. These two cases are significant pieces of legal precedent, with R v Gomez acting as the overruling for the position adopted by the House of Lords in R v Morris. They stand as a testament to the common law method and the judiciary’s commitment to ensuring a fair and just approach to the criminal law, allowing for the prosecution of those who are acting unlawfully while removing technicalities that may restrict justice.
