This document summarizes several theft case laws related to the concept of appropriation: - Lawrence (1971) established that taking money with consent could still be appropriation. - Eddy v Niman (1971) found no appropriation when goods were placed in a store's trolley as this was consistent with the owner's rights. - McPherson (1973) ruled that placing bottles in a bag showed intent to steal, amounting to appropriation. - Skipp (1975) determined appropriation occurred when goods were loaded and the route changed, not just upon intending to steal. - R v Morris (1983) found appropriation as soon as price labels were switched.

1. Some Theft Case Law

2. Lawrence (1971): The driver had appropriated the
money despite the student consenting to him taking it.

3. 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.

4. McPherson (1973): Placing of the bottles in a shopping
bag with intent to steal, amounted to appropriation.

5. 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.

6. R v Morris (1983): As soon as D switched the price
labels he had ‘appropriated’ the property.

7. 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.

8. 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.

9. Gomez 1993: The consent of the owner was irrelevant
in deciding whether an appropriation had taken place.

10. 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.