R v Gomez [1993]

1. Facts:

• Scenario: The defendant, an assistant shop manager, received two stolen cheques as payment for goods and persuaded his manager to accept them by lying about their validity.

• Issue: Whether the act constituted theft despite having the manager's consent.

2. Outcome:

• Decision: The defendant was charged with theft. The House of Lords ruled that appropriation can occur even with the owner's consent, thereby overruling Morris.

3. Impact and Analysis:

• Appropriation and Consent: The court confirmed that an act could be considered appropriation regardless of consent, aligning with the principles stated in Lawrence. This introduced a subjective basis for appropriation, focusing on the dishonesty of the act.

• Overruling Morris: By overruling Morris, the decision emphasised that adverse interference with the owner's rights is not necessary for appropriation.

• Legal Implications: The ruling shifted the focus from whether there was consent to whether the act was dishonest, introducing a more subjective element to the definition of appropriation.

◦ Fraud Comparison: Modern perspectives suggest that such acts would likely be considered fraud today.

◦ Minimal Actus Reus: The decision implies that almost any act involving the handling of property with dishonest intent could constitute theft, even with consent.

◦ Sir John Smith's Critique: He noted that under this ruling, if someone touches another's wallet with the intention to steal but then changes their mind, they have still committed theft. This underscores the broad and somewhat contentious scope of appropriation defined by Gomez.