際際滷

際際滷Share a Scribd company logo

Theft: Appropriation Common Law Development

?Download as PPTX, PDF?
?
Kirsty Allison
Kirsty Allison

This document discusses the legal development of the concept of appropriation as it relates to theft. It summarizes several key court cases between 1971 and 1993 that helped define when appropriation occurs. The cases established that appropriation can take place before an item is removed from the store if the person's actions are inconsistent with the owner's rights, such as switching price tags or loading goods with the intent to steal them and divert them from their destination. Appropriation requires an act that assumes the rights of ownership over an item.

1 of 14
Download to read offline
Theft: Development of Appropriation 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 Common Law Development
Theft: Appropriation Common Law Development
Theft: Appropriation Common Law Development
Theft: Appropriation Common Law Development
Theft: Appropriation Common Law Development
Theft: Appropriation Common Law Development
Theft: Development of Appropriation 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 ;)
Eddy v Niman (1971): The question for the courts to consider about appropriation was: had D done an act inconsistent with the true owner¨s rights? Here, D had taken goods from the shelf and placed them in a trolley provided by the store and had not done an act inconsistent with the rights of the owner.
Lawrence (1971): The driver argued had appropriated the money despite the student consenting to him taking it.
McPherson (1973): Placing of the bottles in a shopping bag with intent to steal, amounted to appropriation.
Skipp (1975): An assumption of the rights of the owner did not necessarily take place at the same time as the intention to permanently deprive the owner of it. D intended to steal the goods from the outset, but he did not appropriate the goods until they were all loaded and changed the route of the goods. Until the goods were diverted from the destination D was acting within the authority of the owner.
R v Morris (1983): As soon as D switched the price labels he had ｀appropriated¨ the property.
Gomez (1993): There was an appropriation even though he acted with the authority of the shop manager. Confirmed that Lawrence was the appropriate authority on the issue of appropriation.

More Related Content

Theft: Appropriation Common Law Development

  • 1. Theft: Development of Appropriation 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. Theft: Development of Appropriation 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 ;)
  • 9. Eddy v Niman (1971): The question for the courts to consider about appropriation was: had D done an act inconsistent with the true owner¨s rights? Here, D had taken goods from the shelf and placed them in a trolley provided by the store and had not done an act inconsistent with the rights of the owner.
  • 10. Lawrence (1971): The driver argued had appropriated the money despite the student consenting to him taking it.
  • 11. McPherson (1973): Placing of the bottles in a shopping bag with intent to steal, amounted to appropriation.
  • 12. Skipp (1975): An assumption of the rights of the owner did not necessarily take place at the same time as the intention to permanently deprive the owner of it. D intended to steal the goods from the outset, but he did not appropriate the goods until they were all loaded and changed the route of the goods. Until the goods were diverted from the destination D was acting within the authority of the owner.
  • 13. R v Morris (1983): As soon as D switched the price labels he had ｀appropriated¨ the property.
  • 14. Gomez (1993): There was an appropriation even though he acted with the authority of the shop manager. Confirmed that Lawrence was the appropriate authority on the issue of appropriation.