Chapter 11 Interactive key cases

D was the owner of a care home and persuaded residents to hand over cash and charging excess fees. He claimed he did not realize he was being dishonest.

The test for dishonesty was whether his conduct was dishonest by the standards of ordinary people. It did not need to be shown that D knew his conduct was dishonest.

The defendant collected rent on behalf of V. She claimed to have been robbed of the rent by a stranger, but it was alleged she had kept it for herself.

The test for dishonesty was whether the defendant had acted in a way which would be regarded as dishonest by the standards of reasonable and honest people.

D, a shop assistant, persuaded the shop manager, V, to sell goods on the strength of cheques which D knew to be stolen.

An act authorized by the owner of goods constitutes an appropriation of goods, even if such consent had been obtained by deception.

V, a middle-aged man of low IQ, inherited £60,000 on the death of his father and then gave it to D, who described herself as V’s ‘carer’. D claimed that the monies were fully valid gifts to her.

The House of Lords held that the Gomez principle could apply to an indefeasible title to property where it was acquired by means of taking a gift from a person who was easily influenced. Therefore, there was an appropriation under the Theft Act 1968.

Back to top