Lawrence v Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis [1972]

Court: House of Lords

Facts: An Italian student, unable to speak English, entered a taxi and handed the driver (D) a piece of paper with his destination. Anticipating a lengthy and costly journey, D took £6 from the student’s wallet without the student's knowledge, even though the actual fare was significantly lower. D was charged under Section 1 of the Theft Act 1968.

Issue: Whether property appropriation could be considered even when the owner gave consent to the taking of money.

Held:
D was rightly convicted under Section 1 of the Theft Act 1968.

Key Judicial Statements: Viscount Dilhorne highlighted that the statute did not include "without the consent of the owner," making it unnecessary for the prosecution to prove a lack of consent. He explained that consent to appropriation does not negate the possibility of dishonesty and that appropriation can occur even with the owner's permission.

The decision clarified that, under the Theft Act 1968, an appropriation could occur even with the owner's consent and that the focus should be on the accused's dishonesty.

💡 Leveluplaw: the important distinction between consent and dishonesty in theft cases, establishing that the absence of consent is not required for appropriation under the Theft Act 1968. The ruling emphasizes that the key issue in determining theft is the accused's dishonest intentions rather than the owner’s consent.