ºÝºÝߣ

ºÝºÝߣShare a Scribd company logo

Theft: Appropriation and consent

•
•
Kirsty Allison
Kirsty Allison

The document discusses several court cases related to the definition of theft and appropriation. It notes that in some cases such as Lawrence (1971), taking property with consent was still considered appropriation. However, in other cases such as Fritschy (1985) and Gallasso (1993), taking property with the owner's permission did not amount to appropriation in the legal sense of theft. The document analyzes how the legal concept of appropriation has been applied inconsistently depending on the specific case and jurisdiction.

1 of 12
Theft: Appropriation and Consent Please note that the pictures in here are not by any means an indication of the true identify of the parties to the proceedings. They are simply a tool to ease our memories ;)
Theft: Appropriation and consent
Theft: Appropriation and consent
Theft: Appropriation and consent
Theft: Appropriation and consent
Theft: Appropriation and consent
Theft: Appropriation and Consent Answers Please note that the pictures in here are not by any means an indication of the true identify of the parties to the proceedings. They are simply a tool to ease our memories ;)
Lawrence (1971): The driver had appropriated the money despite the student consenting to him taking it.
Fritschy (1985): Following the decision in Morris the courts held that there had been no appropriation in England because D had taken possession of the money with authority or consent. Therefore there was no appropriation in England but arguably there had been appropriation in another jurisdiction. This decision may appear to the layperson to be unfair.
Dobson v General Accident Fire and Life Assurance Corp (1990): Following Lawrence the purchaser did assume the rights of the owner. He also did so dishonestly and with intention permanently to deprive Dobson of them. The fact that appropriation took place with Dobson’s consent was irrelevant.
Gomez 1993: The consent of the owner was irrelevant in deciding whether an appropriation had taken place.
Gallasso 1993: Taking of property with the owner's consent could amount to appropriation, for "appropriation" was an objective description of the act done irrespective of the mental state either of the owner or the accused; but, in the instant case, the paying in of the cheque by the nurse into a trust account of which the victim was the sole beneficiary could not be regarded as appropriation.

More Related Content

Theft: Appropriation and consent

  • 1. Theft: Appropriation and Consent Please note that the pictures in here are not by any means an indication of the true identify of the parties to the proceedings. They are simply a tool to ease our memories ;)
  • 7. Theft: Appropriation and Consent Answers Please note that the pictures in here are not by any means an indication of the true identify of the parties to the proceedings. They are simply a tool to ease our memories ;)
  • 8. Lawrence (1971): The driver had appropriated the money despite the student consenting to him taking it.
  • 9. Fritschy (1985): Following the decision in Morris the courts held that there had been no appropriation in England because D had taken possession of the money with authority or consent. Therefore there was no appropriation in England but arguably there had been appropriation in another jurisdiction. This decision may appear to the layperson to be unfair.
  • 10. Dobson v General Accident Fire and Life Assurance Corp (1990): Following Lawrence the purchaser did assume the rights of the owner. He also did so dishonestly and with intention permanently to deprive Dobson of them. The fact that appropriation took place with Dobson’s consent was irrelevant.
  • 11. Gomez 1993: The consent of the owner was irrelevant in deciding whether an appropriation had taken place.
  • 12. Gallasso 1993: Taking of property with the owner's consent could amount to appropriation, for "appropriation" was an objective description of the act done irrespective of the mental state either of the owner or the accused; but, in the instant case, the paying in of the cheque by the nurse into a trust account of which the victim was the sole beneficiary could not be regarded as appropriation.