Rethinking Appropriation
| Author | Simon Cooper,Michael J Allen |
| Published date | 01 February 1992 |
| Date | 01 February 1992 |
| DOI | http://doi.org/10.1177/002201839205600107 |
| Subject Matter | Article |
RETHINKING
APPROPRIATION
Michael JAllen" and Simon Cooper""
In this article the authors reexamine the meaning
of
'appropriation' in
theft. The authors seek to reconcile the House
of
Lords' decisions in
Lawrence and Morris and reconsider decisions made by lower courts in
the light
of
their reconciliation.
The offence of theft is committed when a person 'dishonestly appropriates
property belonging to another with the intention of permanently depriving
the other of
it';'
The Theft Act 1968 resulted from the Eighth Report of
the Criminal Law Revision Committee." The CLRC expressed the hope,
which has proved vain, that 'the concept of "dishonest appropriation" will
be easily understood even without the aid of further definition'. 3The
CLRC chose the word 'appropriates' rather than 'converts' as the latter
was a lawyers' word which to the layman might suggest 'changing something
or exchanging property for other property'.4The Committee were of
opinion that the word 'appropriation' would not seem strange for more
than a short time. During the last 23 years (which it is submitted is very
much more than a short time) the meaning of 'appropriation' has remained
uncertain as judges have struggled to define it. The two leading cases in
the House of Lords, Lawrence v Comr
of
Police for the Metropolis: and
Morris" are difficult to reconcile while the plethora of Divisional Court
and Court of Appeal decisions point in varying directions. The latest Court
of Appeal decision,
Gomez,'
purports to follow Morris. Before analysing
the cases, however, it is proposed to state as an hypothesis the meaning
we attribute to appropriation.
Appropriation
In advancing this suggestion" as to the meaning of appropriation it will be
possible to reconcile the decisions of the House of Lords in Lawrence and
• Senior Lecturer in law, University of Newcastle upon Tyne .
••
Lecturer in law, University of Newcastle upon Tyne and Consultant in corporate crime
to Pannone March Pearson, Solicitors.
The authors wish to thank Professor Brian Hogan for his comments on an earlier draft of
this article. The views expressed are those of the authors.
1See the Theft Act 1968, s 1(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 that the senses in which 'appropriation' was used in ss 1 and 3(1) of the 1968 Act
differed. It is our contention that the meaning to be attributed to appropriation is uniform
throughout the Act.
87
To continue reading
Request your trial