Gomez [1993]
- Resolved the conflict between Morris and Lawrence, ruling that consent of the owner is irrelevant in deciding whether appropriation has taken place.
- Widened the scope for appropriation, virtually anything done to property is appropriation.
Hinks [2000]
- Went even further on the meaning of appropriation, ruling that the reception of a gift could amount to appropriation.
- Appellant’s argument failed as Gomez treated ‘appropriation’ as a neutral word meaning ‘any assumption by a person of the rights of an owner’.
- Appeal rejected as did not want to narrow the scope of ‘appropriation’.
Briggs [2004]
- Briggs through dishonest and deceptive conduct, assumed rights of a house her relatives paid for
- Conviction was quashed on the basis that ‘appropriation’ connoted a physical act rather than a remote action which she was not directly involved in
Atakpu [1994]
- Confirmed that you cannot steal the same property more than once, s 3(1): only ‘without stealing it’ will later assumption be valid.
- Prosecution argued that the initial appropriation was a continuing one, the Court ruled that it would be a matter for the jury to decide whether the appropriation had ended or not.
Oxford v Moss [1979]
- Student ‘took’ information from an exam paper
- Court held that confidential information was not property within the meaning of the TA 1968.
R v Turner (No 2) [1971]
- D removed his car from a garage without paying for the repairs
- Court held that the garage had a lien over the car, therefore, belonged to another.
- You can steal your own property.
Edwards v Ddin [1976]
- D decided he was not going to pay for petrol after he had already filled his car
- Court ruled that D did not appropriate property belonging to another as by the time there was a dishonest appropriation, he was in possession of the petrol.
- Therefore, the actus reus (belonging to another) and mens rea (dishonest) did not coincide in time.
Hall [1973]
- D was a travel agent, received money to pay for flights, but the flights were not booked and money not refunded.
- Deemed not to be theft, as although D was under a contractual duty, he was not obliged to use the money they had specifically given him, or its proceeds, for that purpose.
- Therefore, not under an obligation to deal with the property or its proceeds in a particular way.
Wain [1995]
Court held that D was under a legal obligation to donate the proceeds of money raised for charity, s 5(3), belonging to another
Williams v Phillips (1957)
- Could rubbish left outside a property for local authority to collect be abandoned?
- Court held that it was left outside for a specific purpose, therefore, remained the property of the homeowner.
Ivey [2017]
Removed the second limb of the Ghosh test, establishing that dishonesty is based on:
- What was D’s knowledge or belief as to the facts?
- Accordingly, is what D did dishonest according to the (objective) standards of reasonable and honest people?
Velumyl [1989]
Confirmed that if you take money from someone intending to repay it, there is intention to permanently deprive.
You always intended to deprive them of the notes/coins you took, equivalent repayment is only relevant to honesty.
Chan Man-sin [1988]
Re intention to permanently deprive
- In this case, D argued that the bank would reimburse the company, therefore not permanent deprivation
- Argument rejected as by writing out cheques, he had treated the company’s property as his own to dispose of regardless of the company’s rights
Lloyd [1985]
re intention to permanently deprive
- Projectionist made ‘pirate’ copies of a film and returned them to cinema
- Deemed that the borrowing was not equivalent to an outright taking or disposal as the goodness and practical value of the films remained.
DPP v Ray [1974]
- D who decided not to pay, and run from a restaurant after eating the main course
- Was deemed false representation, as by first entering the restaurant, had impliedly represented that he had the means and intention of paying.
- The AR was satisfied throughout, but the MR - ‘knows his representation is untrue or misleading’ is only satisfied when he decided not to pay.
Lambie [1981]
- D continued to use a credit card after exceeding the limit
- Her continued use of the card was deemed to be false representation of her authority to use it.
McDavitt [1981]
- If D does not actually leave the spot where payment is due then no offence is committed
- It would instead by attempt to make off.
- Therefore, for example, if D runs out of a shop in a department store, until they leave the department store (in which they can still pay), there is no offence.
Vincent [2001]
D agreed with hotel manager to pay his bill when he could, therefore, payment was not expected on the spot when he left
Allen [1985]
- D left hotel without paying a bill, but claimed he genuinely hoped to pay the bill in the future
- Court decided that the intention had to be to avoid payment permanently.
