Key case; R v Gomez (house of lords 1993)

Key case; R v Gomez (house of lords 1993)
Gomez
Vs state of mind is irrelevant; lack of consent is not a requirement for appropriation. Technically, anyone doing anything whatsoever to property which belongs to another, with or without the owner’s consent, appropriates it


This Case R v Gomez (1993) involves the defended Gomez and his friend {A}. {A} was in possession of stolen cheques, Gomez worked in a store in London {A} approached Gomez and asked him to use the stolen cheques in acquirer a large some of electrical goods. Gomez accepted and took the stolen cheques knowing them to be stolen to the store manger informing him that he had confirmed these cheques.
The manager on this information was then requested by Gomez to authorize the supply for these goods, which he did because he believed that the cheques had been confirmed. Goods where delivered to {A}. the cheques where then found to be stolen {A} and Gomez was then arrested for the theft of these goods.
Gomez case went to trial, Gomez defence counsel submitted a no case to answer plea on the grounds that one of the five points to prove for the offence of theft was missing i.e. the ‘appropriation’.
On appeal in the House of Lords the Case Lawrence V Metropolitan Police commissioner was referred to.