R v Gomez [1993]

Court: House of Lords

Facts: Gomez (D), the assistant manager of an electrical goods shop, obtained two stolen cheques and persuaded his manager to accept them as valid payment for goods. He falsely claimed the cheques were legitimate, and the manager authorized the transaction, believing the cheques were as good as cash. When the cheques bounced, Gomez was charged with theft.

Issues: (a) Whether there was appropriation when the stolen goods were obtained with the consent of the owner under false representation.
(b) Whether the passing of property must necessarily involve adverse interference or usurpation of some right of the owner.

Held: The House of Lords dismissed the appeal, concluding that (a) appropriation did occur and (b) adverse interference was not a prerequisite for appropriation.

Key Judicial Statements: Lord Keith of Kinkel stated that the earlier decision in R v Morris did not preclude the possibility of appropriation occurring even when the owner has consented. He noted that any assumption of the rights of the owner, such as switching price labels, constitutes an appropriation. He clarified that appropriation does not hinge on the absence of the owner's consent.

Lord Browne-Wilkinson further emphasized that the concept of appropriation should not be conflated with the mental state of either the owner or the accused. He argued that the definition of appropriation in the Theft Act 1968 is objective and pertains to the act itself, not the consent or mental state of the parties involved.

💡Leveluplaw: R v Gomez clarified that appropriation under the Theft Act 1968 does not require the absence of consent from the owner, thus expanding the understanding of what constitutes appropriation.