DPP v Gomez ([1993] 1 All ER 1): Consent and Appropriation in Theft under the Theft Act 1968

Introduction

The case of Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) v Gomez ([1993] 1 All ER 1) represents a pivotal moment in the interpretation of theft law within the United Kingdom. Decided by the House of Lords on December 3, 1992, this case delves deep into the nuances of the Theft Act 1968, particularly focusing on the definitions and boundaries of key terms such as "appropriation" and "consent." The appellant, the Director of Public Prosecutions, challenged the convictions of Edwin Gomez, who was previously found guilty of theft. The core legal question revolved around whether two prior decisions, Lawrence v Metropolitan Police Commissioner [1972] AC 626 and Reg v Morris [1984] AC 320, could be harmonized in their interpretation of "appropriation" under the Theft Act.

Summary of the Judgment

Edwin Gomez, employed as an assistant manager at a retail electrical goods shop, was involved in transactions that ultimately constituted theft under the Theft Act 1968. Gomez facilitated the supply of goods in exchange for two building society cheques, which were knowingly stolen and ultimately dishonored. Initially convicted, Gomez appealed to the Court of Appeal, which quashed his convictions based on its interpretation of previous cases. However, upon further appeal, the House of Lords revisited the matter, scrutinizing the consistency and applicability of the rulings in Lawrence and Morris. The House ultimately set aside the Court of Appeal's decision, restoring Gomez's convictions and thus reinforcing the original interpretation that consent, even if obtained through deception, does not negate theft under section 1(1) of the Act.

Analysis

Precedents Cited

The judgment critically examined two landmark cases:

• Lawrence v Metropolitan Police Commissioner [1972] AC 626: This case addressed whether the absence of consent is an essential ingredient of theft. Lord Keith of Kinkel clarified that the omission of "without the consent of the owner" from section 1(1) was deliberate, thereby relieving the prosecution from proving the lack of consent.
• Reg v Morris [1984] AC 320: This decision introduced ambiguity by suggesting that "appropriation" involves adverse interference with the owner's rights. Lord Roskill's interpretation implied that even with consent, if obtained through deception, appropriation—and thus theft—could occur.

These two cases presented conflicting interpretations of "appropriation," leading to significant debate within legal circles. DPP v Gomez aimed to reconcile these differences.

Legal Reasoning

The House of Lords meticulously dissected the elements of theft as defined by the Theft Act 1968:

• Dishonestly Appropriates: For an act to be theft, it must involve a dishonest appropriation of property belonging to another.
• Property Belonging to Another: The property must belong to someone other than the accused at the time of appropriation.
• Intention to Permanently Deprive: The accused must intend to permanently deprive the owner of the property.

The crux of the judgment hinged on interpreting "appropriates." The House reaffirmed that appropriation does not necessitate an absence of consent but must be understood as any assumption of the rights of an owner, which can occur even if the owner consents, provided the consent is obtained dishonestly. This interpretation aligns more closely with the principles laid out in Lawrence while addressing the ambiguities introduced by Morris.

The Lords determined that in Gomez’s case, despite the appearance of managerial authorization, the underlying deceit rendered the consent invalid. Consequently, Gomez had appropriated the goods dishonestly, fulfilling the criteria for theft.

Impact

DPP v Gomez has profound implications for the administration of theft law in the UK:

• Clarification of Appropriation: The decision clarifies that "appropriation" under section 1(1) does not require proving the absence of consent, thereby streamlining the prosecution of theft cases where deceit is involved.
• Consensus in Law: By resolving the inconsistencies between Lawrence and Morris, the judgment fosters a more unified and predictable application of the Theft Act.
• Prosecution Strategy: Prosecutors can now focus more confidently on establishing dishonesty and intention without being encumbered by the need to prove lack of consent explicitly.
• Protection Against Deceit: The ruling offers stronger protections for property owners against sophisticated forms of theft where consent is superficially obtained through deceit.

Future cases will likely cite DPP v Gomez to support arguments around the interpretation of appropriation, especially in scenarios involving consent compromised by fraudulent means.

Complex Concepts Simplified

To fully grasp the implications of DPP v Gomez, it's essential to understand several legal concepts:

• Appropriation: Under the Theft Act 1968, appropriation refers to any assumption of the rights of an owner over property. This can occur through physical taking, receiving, or any act that demonstrates a claim of ownership.
• Dishonesty: For an action to be deemed dishonest, it must contravene the standards of acceptable behavior by the reasonable person, taken as a whole.
• Consent: While consent can play a role in property transactions, it holds no power to absolve theft if the consent is obtained through deceit or fraudulent means.
• Intent to Permanently Deprive: This refers to the intention of the accused to ensure that the property does not return to the rightful owner, indicating a desire for permanent control.
• Property Belonging to Another: The property must be owned by someone other than the accused at the time of the appropriation for the act to qualify as theft.

Conclusion

The judgment in DPP v Gomez stands as a cornerstone in the interpretation of theft under the Theft Act 1968. By resolving the ambiguities between previous rulings and establishing that appropriation does not necessitate the absence of consent, the House of Lords reinforced the core principles of theft: dishonesty and intention to permanently deprive. This decision not only streamlines the prosecution of theft cases involving deceit but also ensures robust protection for property owners against sophisticated fraudulent schemes. As legal precedents evolve, DPP v Gomez will remain a vital reference point for both legal practitioners and scholars navigating the complexities of property law and criminal appropriation.