R v Gomez [1993]
Share
R v Gomez [1993] AC 442 is a significant House of Lords decision that dealt with the concept of appropriation in theft cases under the Theft Act 1968. The case explored the interplay between appropriation and the owner's consent, addressing a potential conflict between earlier decisions.
Gomez, an assistant manager at an electrical goods shop, was involved in a scheme where goods were supplied in exchange for stolen cheques. He prepared a list of goods and submitted it to the manager for authorisation, claiming the cheques were valid. The manager approved the transaction, believing the cheques were as good as cash. Subsequently, the cheques bounced, leading to convictions for theft.
The central legal issue was whether Gomez's actions constituted appropriation, especially considering the manager's authorisation and the principle of consent laid down in earlier cases, particularly R v Morris [1984]. The House of Lords, led by Lord Keith of Kinkel, rejected the appeal, reaffirming the principle established in Lawrence v Metropolitan Police Commissioner [1972] that appropriation does not require the absence of the owner's consent.
Lord Keith criticised Lord Roskill's analysis in R v Morris, asserting that appropriation could occur even with the owner's consent. He emphasised that any act assuming the rights of the owner, such as switching price labels, constituted an appropriation. Lord Keith disagreed with the notion that only acts adverse to the owner's rights amounted to appropriation. He clarified that the switching of price labels alone, without other acts, constituted an appropriation. Additionally, he disagreed that only acts adverse to the owner could qualify as appropriation, as held in Lawrence.
R v Gomez clarified that appropriation, as defined by the Theft Act 1968, does not hinge on the absence of the owner's consent. The decision reinforced the broader understanding of appropriation, encompassing any act assuming the rights of the owner, irrespective of consent, and resolved any perceived conflict with the earlier decision in R v Morris.
Gomez, an assistant manager at an electrical goods shop, was involved in a scheme where goods were supplied in exchange for stolen cheques. He prepared a list of goods and submitted it to the manager for authorisation, claiming the cheques were valid. The manager approved the transaction, believing the cheques were as good as cash. Subsequently, the cheques bounced, leading to convictions for theft.
The central legal issue was whether Gomez's actions constituted appropriation, especially considering the manager's authorisation and the principle of consent laid down in earlier cases, particularly R v Morris [1984]. The House of Lords, led by Lord Keith of Kinkel, rejected the appeal, reaffirming the principle established in Lawrence v Metropolitan Police Commissioner [1972] that appropriation does not require the absence of the owner's consent.
Lord Keith criticised Lord Roskill's analysis in R v Morris, asserting that appropriation could occur even with the owner's consent. He emphasised that any act assuming the rights of the owner, such as switching price labels, constituted an appropriation. Lord Keith disagreed with the notion that only acts adverse to the owner's rights amounted to appropriation. He clarified that the switching of price labels alone, without other acts, constituted an appropriation. Additionally, he disagreed that only acts adverse to the owner could qualify as appropriation, as held in Lawrence.
R v Gomez clarified that appropriation, as defined by the Theft Act 1968, does not hinge on the absence of the owner's consent. The decision reinforced the broader understanding of appropriation, encompassing any act assuming the rights of the owner, irrespective of consent, and resolved any perceived conflict with the earlier decision in R v Morris.
