Appropriation case cards

Question 1

Describe the case of R v Vinall (2011)

Answer 1

Area: Appropriation
Element: Theft
Facts: Defendants took a bike and abandoned it a short distance away
Principle: Appropriation occurred in the initial taking of the bike and/or the abandoning of the bike

Question 2

Describe the cade of R v Pitham and Hehl (1977)

Answer 2

Area: Appropriation
Element: Appropriation
Facts: Defendants ‘ sold furniture belonging to another person and in that person’s house
Principle: Appropriation occurred by assuming the right to sell another’s goods.

Question 3

Describe the case of R v Morris (1983)

Answer 3

Area: Appropriation
Element: Appropriation:
Facts: Defendant switched the price labels of two items in a supermarket
Principle: Appropriation was of the owner’s right to put labels on the goods. Appropriation does not have to be all the rights of an owner

Question 4

Lawrence v Commissioner for Metropolitan Police (1972)

Answer 4

Area: Appropriation
Element: Fraud/theft
Facts: Taxi driver took too much money from proffered wallet of his passenger who did not speak the same language.
Principle: The consent to appropriation of the money was only to the correct amount not the excess because of the deception.

Question 5

R v Gomez (1993)

Answer 5

Area: Appropriation
Element: Fraud
Facts: Goods were handed over in exchange for worthless cheques
Principle: The consent to appropriation of the goods was not genuine because of the deception about the value of the cheques

Question 6

R v Hinks (2000)

Answer 6

Area: Appropriation
Element: Fraud
Facts: Victim of limited intelligence but understood the concept of ownership of property and making a valid gift, lady is looking after man of low intelligence and persuades the man to give her a gift
Principle: Even though there was a valid gift, there was appropriation