Your World of Legal Intelligence
 United Kingdom | +44 (0) 20 7284 8080

Rethinking Appropriation

Document Cited authorities 8 Cited in Related
AuthorSimon Cooper,Michael J Allen
Published date01 February 1992
Date01 February 1992
DOIhttp://doi.org/10.1177/002201839205600107
RETHINKING
APPROPRIATION
Michael JAllen" and SimonCooper""
Inthis article theauthors reexaminethe meaning
of
'appropriation' in
theft.Theauthorsseekto reconcile theHouse
of
Lords'decisions in
Lawrence and Morris andreconsider decisions madeby lower courts in
the light
of
their reconciliation.
Theoffenceof theftis committed when a person'dishonestlyappropriates
property belonging to another with the intention of permanently depriving
the other of
it';'
TheTheftAct1968 resultedfromtheEighthReport of
the CriminalLaw Revision Committee." The CLRC expressed the hope,
which hasproved vain, that 'the concept of "dishonest appropriation" will
be easily understood even withoutthe aidof further definition'. 3The
CLRC chose the word 'appropriates' rather than 'converts' as the latter
was a lawyers' word which tothe laymanmight suggest 'changing something
or exchanging property for other property'.4The Committee were of
opinion thatthe word 'appropriation' would not seem strange for more
than ashorttime.Duringthelast 23 years(whichitis submitted is very
much more than ashort time) the meaning of'appropriation' has remained
uncertain as judges havestruggled todefine it.Thetwo leading cases in
the Houseof Lords,Lawrence v Comr
of
Police forthe Metropolis:and
Morris" aredifficult toreconcilewhiletheplethora of Divisional Court
and Court of Appeal decisions point in varying directions.The latestCourt
of Appeal decision,
Gomez,'
purports to follow Morris. Before analysing
thecases,however,it is proposed to state as an hypothesisthemeaning
we attribute to appropriation.
Appropriation
In advancing this suggestion" as tothemeaning of appropriation itwill be
possible toreconcilethedecisions of theHouseof LordsinLawrence and
• Senior Lecturer in law, University ofNewcastle uponTyne .
••
Lecturer in law, Universityof Newcastleupon Tyneand Consultant in corporate crime
to Pannone March Pearson, Solicitors.
The authors wish to thank Professor BrianHoganforhis comments on an earlier draft of
this article.Theviews expressed are thoseof theauthors.
1See theTheftAct1968, s1(1).
2Theft and Related Offences,Cmnd 2977.
3Ibid, para 34.
4Ibid, para 35.
5[1972JAC 626.
6[1984JAC 320.
7[1991J3 All
ER
394, see p 98,below.
8In 'The Appropriate Appropriation' [1991JCrim LR 426, Andrew Halpin advanced the
proposition thatthe senses in which'appropriation' was usedinss1 and3(1)of the1968 Act
differed. It is ourcontention thatthe meaningto be attributed to appropriation is uniform
throughout the Act.
87

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT