R v Gomez [1993] AC 442
R v Gomez confirms that appropriation under the Theft Act 1968 may occur even where the owner consents to the transaction. Consent obtained by deception does not prevent an assumption of the owner's rights.
Facts
Gomez was an assistant manager at an electrical goods shop. He persuaded the shop manager to accept two stolen building society cheques in payment for goods, falsely representing that they were as good as cash. The manager authorised the transaction and the goods were released. Gomez was convicted of theft. The Court of Appeal quashed his conviction because the manager had consented to the transfer and the trial judge had not required proof of an act outside that consent. The prosecution appealed to the House of Lords, asking whether an appropriation under section 3 of the Theft Act 1968 can occur when the owner authorises the transfer, particularly where that consent has been obtained through deception.
Legal Issue
Does an owner's consent prevent an appropriation under section 3 of the Theft Act 1968 when that consent was induced by the defendant's deception?
Held
The House of Lords allowed the prosecution's appeal and restored the conviction. An appropriation is any assumption of the rights of an owner; the statutory language does not require that the assumption occur without consent. The manager's authorisation therefore did not prevent the release of the goods from amounting to an appropriation. Their Lordships treated Lawrence v Metropolitan Police Commissioner as establishing that consent is irrelevant to this element and rejected a narrower reading of R v Morris. Deception may explain why conduct is dishonest, but it is not necessary to construct a separate non-consensual act before appropriation can be found. The remaining elements of theft must still be established.
⭐ Legal Principle
An appropriation under section 3 of the Theft Act 1968 can occur with the owner's consent, including consent obtained by deception. The element concerns the defendant's assumption of an owner's rights. Consent is relevant to the wider facts and dishonesty, but it is not a legal barrier to appropriation.
Significance
The case settled a major uncertainty about the relationship between consent and appropriation. It confirms a broad, neutral conception of appropriation and prevents fraudulent defendants from escaping theft liability merely because they induced an authorised transfer. R v Hinks later extended the reasoning to valid gifts, while Lawrence remains the foundation for consensual appropriation. Modern students must combine this broad actus reus with the current dishonesty test in Ivey and Barton and Booth. An answer should not collapse appropriation, deception and dishonesty into a single requirement.
Common exam questions about this case
Why did the shop manager's authorisation not prevent appropriation?
Section 3 defines appropriation through the assumption of an owner's rights, not through the absence of consent. Gomez caused the shop's goods to be transferred under a transaction he had procured by deception. The manager's authorisation did not alter the fact that rights of ownership were assumed. Consent remained part of the evidence bearing on the transaction and dishonesty, but not a defence to appropriation itself.
Did R v Gomez make deception an element of appropriation?
No. Deception explained how Gomez obtained the manager's consent and supported the allegation of dishonesty, but appropriation can occur whether consent is informed, deceived or freely given. The legal focus is the assumption of an owner's rights. The prosecution must then prove the other elements of theft, including dishonesty and an intention permanently to deprive.
How did R v Hinks develop the rule in Gomez?
Hinks confirmed that appropriation may exist even where a donor voluntarily makes a valid gift that passes good title. That result extends beyond consent obtained by deception. Read together, the cases establish that civil consent and title do not define appropriation. Their breadth makes careful analysis of dishonesty, ownership at the relevant moment and intention permanently to deprive particularly important.