ESSAY - APPROPRIATION

APPROPRIATION

Original concept of appropriation – original criminal Law Revision Committee behind the creation of the Theft Act 1968. An advance of idea behind ‘taking’ which was a requirement under the old Larceny Act. The general principle behind the creation of the new offence of theft was its appeal to the ordinary meaning of language as understood by ordinary, literate people. The early manifestations of the early principles were discussed in Lawrence v Metropolitan Commissioner (1972) AC 626 and Morris (1983) QB. These cases were the background to Gomez (1993) AC 442, in which Lawrence was confirmed. The resultant very wide nature of appropriation: It meant that most ordinary civil transaction (e.g. at a shop till) were example of appropriations. The wide effect of Gomez was thought to be wrong by Smith; on the other hand Glazebook (1991) Cambridge L.J. 389 claims ‘…there was nothing in the definition of stealing in s.1 of the 1968 Act that required the courts to make the trivial and morally irrelevant distinction between someone who dishonestly appropriated another’s property by stealth, and one who did so by deceit. The crook is as dishonest in the one case as the other and the loss to his victim, is exactly the same. Decisions of the court of appeal following Gomez have indicated some concern with the decision: Gallasso (1993) Crim LR 459 which smith claims should be regarded as per incuriam. Mazo (1997) 2 Cr App R 518 and Kendrick (1997) 2 Cr App R 524 appear to have affirmed Gomez. Hinks (2000) 4 All ER 833 HL; held that it was immaterial to the question of whether there was an appropriation that a valid gift had been made, casting douts on Mazo.
The upshot appears to be almost that if there is dishonesty then there is an appropriation, although that suggest that appropriation is many cases is a redundant idea altogether.

Did the development of the meaning of appropriation made any sense? To have a view on the question whether, when people are accused of having committed theft, their liability includes the meaningless ingredient (appropriation). Law should be assessed as a set of arguments having significant social repercussions. If a judge is persuaded by the wrong argument his decision to convict will bring about a grave injustice. ‘deeming’ and therefore technical requirement of s.6. Conspiracy and conditional intent to commit theft. By just going into the department with the ‘secret and unlawful’ intent, they have possibly committed burglary (entering as a trespasser with intent to steal). S.6. A could be said to have intention to permanently deprive the shop of the shoes, throwing the shoes into the rubbish bin confirms that. Ripping the dress is criminal damage. Swapping label is appropriation (unless done for a joke, Lord Roskill Obiter in Moris. If they have intention to remove the jumper from the shop the theft is complete before they change their mind even though they put the garment back. When B put it in her pocket the requisite element is complete

Good candidates discussed the wide open nature of appropriation and made some comment on the idea of appropriation as price-swapping; they also pointed out how artificial the deeming provision of s.6 is.


Ø There need not be any touching or taking of goods to amount to an appropriation
Ø S.6(1) - Appropriation start the moment D started dealing with other people’s property as an owner regardless of the other’s right
Ø The advantages and disadvantages of the wide conception of appropriation
Ø Taking goods amount to appropriation
Ø Dishonest s.6 of the TA 1968
Ø S.15 deals with collecting a cheque fraudulently
Ø Appropriation under Gomez principle (Gomez (1993) AC 442; Hinks (2001) AC 241
Ø Legal Test of dishonesty
Ø Test of dishonestly (Ghosh Test)