Appropriation For Theft In Law: Analyzing Darroux Judgment And Implications

This paper enumerates upon the concept of appropriation for theft in law and critically analyzes the key arguments set forth by Leggett as it justifies the evidence through the argument as it creates an agreement with respect to the case. The Darroux judgment as well as two articles by Catherine Elliott would also be analyzed in order to understand the importance of the concept of appropriation for the offence of theft. In addition to this, it also tries to analyze the concept by linking it to Gomez and Hinks cases in relation to appropriation as the Preddy case seemed to give a narrow interpretation. In conclusion, it recapitulates the points that have been pondered upon in the paper.

Darroux was considered to work for a housing association and she was employed as a manager for the charity and her responsibilities were supposed to be inclusive of the general succession of a specific residential care home as this would be overseeing and along with that authorizing the all-care home staff salaries. It was also inclusive of all the holiday and overtime payments. However, once the payments had been permitted, she received a fax each month to a distinct and separate company where the role of the company was to process the payments. Therefore, an agreement was supposed to take place which entitled her to additional payments as she either did overtime or she covered other staff members. In addition to this, she was also considered to be entitled to the claim payment in light of the untaken holiday as there was an arrangement of that between 2002 and 2011 where her claims had been approved separately through the charity’s chairman of the Board of Trusts. Nevertheless, the new chair chosen created a process that lapsed majority of the claims of Darroux and these claims went unchecked. Furthermore, she was discharged from her role in the year 2014 and through an investigation it had been discovered that there were various administrative shortcomings when the financial audit had been carried out and due to that it was found that Darroux falsely claimed overtime as well as other on-call claims and holiday payments. Therefore, she was charged with nine-counts of theft and the indictments with respect to those counts were supposed to be covering each monthly claim.

The issue that needed to be discussed was regarding the appropriation of the claims and whether she had falsely claimed those payments which led her to be charged with theft. The Court of Appeal, through this particular case, correctly detected and identified the more appropriate charge under section 2 of the Fraud Act 2006 and this offence was supposed to be when a person made false representation through intention which amounted to a risk of loss. Therefore, the Act, through the case was supposed to help in representing false and untrue or misleading statements because, in this case if Darroux filled up claim forms while knowing that she was not entitled to those claims, then she did so in a dishonest manner as there would be little difficulty regarding the obtainment of the conviction as this had been the offence for indictment. However, as per the analysis of the Leggett case comment on the Darroux judgment, it can be understood that, it tried to reason the case with the fact that an alleged theft takes place with the intention of action as this would be regarding the credit balance of someone’s bank account as they have the right to payment of a cheque. This sometimes would be difficult to identify because the act of appropriation would not be clear as the enrichment of the dishonesty was supposed to be at some other individual’s expense. Therefore, in such cases or instances, the prosecution was supposed to be well advised regarding the usage of charges other than theft. Nevertheless, despite the knowledge, the charge of theft through indictment was supposed to not be ideal as it was more problematic to constitute fraud or false representation as the choice to pursue someone of the specific offence would be based on the decision of the Crown as it would be fatal to the conviction of the appellant. Thus, under Section 2 of the Fraud Act 2006, the charge would be accepted as it would not be circumventing the alternative prosecution of theft.

Identification of the Issues

An individual is considered to guilty of theft if the person misappropriates the property that is belonging to some other individual with the intention of creating deprivation of the property permanently. Therefore, the Theft Act 1968, offers protection against those persons and it creates sections that are pivotal as well as fundamental for making the whole statute more structured around the definition of theft. Hence, there have been disputes surrounding the elements of appropriation as the consent of the property of the individual needs to be made properly as that would stand as a relevant statement for understanding and comprehending the instance of theft. Section 1 of the Act is considered to define Theft and Section 3 of the statute is supposed to be enumerating upon the Appropriation. The section is deemed to demonstrate about the assumption of the rights of the legal title-holder of the possessions without any kind of consent. It states that the legal owner of the property is considered to have absolute legal rights on the property owned by him or her and due to that, the owner would have the right to enjoy a particular function of the property or use it in a manner that would be creating the specific function. Therefore, through the analysis, it can be stated that appropriation would be inclusive of the assumption of the legal rights of the property as the permission for the usage would originally be granted if it is acquired honestly.

Identification of the key aspects of the analysis of the cases and the arguments put forward through the article

According to the author, it has been stated that, the English law of theft is considered to be complex as well as confusing and at times problematic in principle. It might also have certain inconsistencies regarding the interpretation of appropriation because it would be having the courts as well as the commentators grapple with intuition rather than entailing the subject element of the concept of appropriation as it cannot be deemed to be primarily objective. Therefore, there have been several deliberations regarding the matter because there are several individuals who think that the subjectivity of the principle lies with the traditional association of culpability. This is supposed to rather be based on the conduct. However, there have been certain acts that have been understood as factual but it causes to stand as effects and impacts as the concept of appropriation needs to necessarily be considered with the specific and sufficient condition of having a mindset. This is deemed to have created a term for proprietary subjectivity which issues a clarification on the concept of appropriation as it can resolve all the misperceived problems. Nevertheless, in spite such statements, it can be stated that, the clarification for the concept of appropriation can help in creating a solution technique which would reveal the other problems of law in the area of theft as there would be ample amount of suggestions regarding the improvement of this particular area of law as it would issue and implement certain problems by addressing those problems.

Explanation of the Law

As per the analysis of the author, it has also been stated that, the facts in relation to Gomez was supposed to be through the fact that the defendant was also an employee who had convinced the manager to sell any kind of goods to an accomplice for accepting the payment through cheques. Therefore, the cheque was supposed to act as good as cash in spite of knowing that they were stolen. Therefore, Gomez in his case was convicted of theft at the trial court despite appealing to the Court of Appeal. It was substantially clear through the case that the position that had been stated by anyone who had acquired goods in return for a cheque was supposed to know about the dishonored presentation as this was made through a similar pretense which made the person guilty through the charge of theft. However, through the analysis, it can be understood that, there was no appropriation that had taken place as the conduct did not fall under the criteria of Theft Act in practice but it was expanded through the Act in an enormous manner. This particular statement in the Gomez case was supposed to be agreed upon as it demonstrated that in order to create a new offence of theft that would be inclusive of the conduct of the ordinary people it would be difficult to comprehend whether it was an act of theft or whether it was a mistake as the consent being made would have been irrelevant as it would be creating a clear conflict between the civil and criminal law.

As per the discussion and through the analysis, it can be understood that, through the elimination of the consent element for appropriation the necessity of committing an action disappears for conviction. However, this does not guarantee the fact that in case of certain instances consent would be distinguished in case the defendant’s conduct is dishonest. Therefore, the dismissal of the consent by law would be virtually dependent upon the entirety of the intention or ‘mens rea’ element as this would be creating the taking of the possession in a clear manner without any kind of authority. It was also understood through the analysis that, the consent was relevant only because there was some kind of adverse interference which would not be perceived as an element of appropriation.

As per the analysis, it can be understood that Catherine Elliot provided a critical decision in Briggs which suggested that the Court of Appeal seemed resolute for creating a frontier between theft and along with that fraud as it tried attaining a stance that required the act of appropriation through the treatment of certain particular acts as being too distantly remote. This was also supposed to be in the form of something that was appointed for opposing the existing case law such as Hinks because it dealt with remoteness. Elliot therefore, tried to offer the Court of Appeal that Darroux was considered to be in disagreement with the requirement regarding the specific or particular act because there were o actions to be considered because it was thought out to be remote. Thus, the causal link was regarding the transfer as it was too remote die to the acting beyond of the role which was a mere agent for Darroux. Nonetheless, through the analysis, it can be understood that, the wording in connection with the conviction and the indictment was supposed to be through the stolen monies as it was supposed to be belonging to the Sunridge Court Housing Association as it was between the certain specified dates. Therefore, the Court of Appeal was supposed to quickly interpret the appropriation charges as these were supposed to be through the thing in action which helped in formulating the rights through the bank accounts of the charity. Nevertheless, the ambiguous nature was also supposed to offer a certain level of flexibility regarding upholding of the conviction as the problem in this particular case was supposed to be through the completion of the forms as it was being sent to the PCS as Darroux in this case, did not have any direct control over the account of the charity. Therefore, the problem or the confusion in the Darroux case was regarding the appropriation taking place over the money and this was not with respect to appropriation. In addition to this, the Court’s perception regarding the matter was in connection with the factor that appropriation could have taken place only if the money had arrived at the personal bank account of Darroux as this would show that the property did not belong to any other individual. This could be understood and highlighted through the instance in relation to the case of Edwards v Ddin [1976] 1 WLR 942. This was supposed to be through the view that the assumption would be followed through the charity but they would not have held any proprietary rights or they would not have had any control over the money if it was transferred to Darroux’s account.

Identification of Key Aspects of Analysis

As per the author, it has also been stated that, under section 5(1) of the Theft Act 1968, the property would not be considered to be belonging to some other person if there is a possession or control on the property but in an alternative sense, if the owner does not have any proprietary right or interest then the property would be belonging to a trust. It can be explained and elaborated through the instance with regards to the case of Westdeutsche Landesbank v Islington Borough Council [1996] AC 669. This was supposed to be stated under Section 5(4) as it required an individual to acquire money through mistake which would make them obliged for restoring the money in an alternative way. This was supposed to make the individual understand the principle of equity by making the person operate on the conscience of the owner as this was supposed to be a legal interest. However, it has also been stated that, under the equitable principles, the PCS was supposed to be wrongly paid the money and this was supposed to be from the charity’s account and such created an unconscionable conduct.

Therefore, through the analysis, it can be understood that the issues in this particular Darroux case was supposed to be in relation to the elaboration and interpretation of the concept of appropriation for the offence of theft. This was supposed to be crucial because the wording of the indictment that was presented in the case was regarding the stolen monies and due to the action of the appropriation the ambiguous nature created a conviction which could not amount to appropriation. However, it was different from Preddy case, because it was separated from the case of R v Williams [2001] 1 Cr App R 23 where the builder who had acquired certain sums of money had gone through unnecessary and overhauled building work which made the individual liable for appropriated property as he attempted to cash the cheques that were received through payments. This was supposed to offer a subsequent analysis regarding the transaction history as it was undoubtedly belonging to V. Thus, it was understood that, in order to indict someone on the account of appropriation, the action as well as the intention for committing something through dishonesty needs to be established as this would create a secured position for criminal conviction. In the instance of Darroux, through the analysis, it can be understood that the senior employee at the residential care home was supposed to be run by a charity and this made the person engage in a common enough type of criminal conduct which created submission of false records in order to claim entitlement through overtime and additional payments. This was supposed to create various accounts of alleged theft as the prosecutors tried to recall the problems arising out with the prosecution of the mortgage fraud cases as per Section 15 of the Theft Act, 1968. This was supposed to be successfully deliberated upon by the defendants as there were no properties that were obtained through the funds that were supposed to be debited from the victim’s bank account. Therefore, this was supposed to seem a little familiar to the case of R v Preddy [1996] Crim LR 726. Hence, as a result, the relevance was with respect to the effect of the dishonest deception as it caused the victim loss or a risk of loss. The case on appeal was supposed to be based on appropriation but it was considered to be an essential ingredient for actus reus in theft and this did not take place and due to the failure of establishment, the concept of appropriation could not be used as the stolen or dishonest appropriation only took place without any kind of deception.

Conclusion

Thus, in conclusion and through the analysis, it can be stated that these issues presented in the case of Darroux was supposed to discussed thoroughly through the Leggett case commentary. As a result, to prove, appropriation in theft, the intention needs to be evidently proved as it would be creating an element for property or property belonging that has been violated through dishonest means which would make the person intend on permanently depriving the other person of the property. Therefore, appropriation is a little distinct from theft as an offence because, it dwells more on the fact that there is a supposition of the truths and along with that the rights of the owner of the property which has been taken away in a dishonest manner. However, through the case of Hinks it can be understood that there are several consequences or implications evident because it did not just distinguish between fraud and theft but it did create certain different crimes based on logic. This was supposed to completely discard appropriation as it was being narrow due to the number of unjustified acquittals as it created a scope for consequence. Nevertheless, it was also found that the convincing justification was in relation to the unconscionable conduct of the defendant as this created penalization in the sphere of criminal law. However, the decision given in Darroux was considered to create a narrow view of appropriation because it was sitting uneasily with instance of Gomez and Hinks. It also acted as a stark warning for the prosecutors because of the indictments as it created a basis for bringing an appropriate charge through the Court of appeal system. This was however, identified in a correct manner through the Court of appeal as it created a separation or a distinction between the theft as well as fraud. Nevertheless, the Catherine Elliot article helped in providing a strict approach to this particular case because the Court of Appeal can try opening the case back again.

Darroux v R [2018] EWCA Crim 1009.

R v Gomez [1993] AC 442.

R v Hinks [2000] UKHL 53.

R v Preddy [1996] Crim LR 726.

R v Williams [2001] 1 Cr App R 23.

Westdeutsche Landesbank v Islington Borough Council [1996] AC 669.

Busse, Mark, and Veronica Strang. "Introduction: Ownership and appropriation." Ownership and appropriation. Routledge, 2020. 1-19.

Cole, M., et al. "Wage Theft and the Struggle over the Working Day in Hospitality Work: A Typology of Unpaid Labour-Time." Work, Employment and Society (2022).

Gould, Emily. "Offences relating to “dealing” in cultural property: The UK approach." Global Perspectives on Cultural Property Crime. Routledge 177-189.

Leggett, Zach. "Court of Appeal: Theft: Appropriation through submitting false claims? Darroux v R [2018] EWCA Crim 1009." The Journal of Criminal Law 82.4 (2018): 287-291.

Leggett, Zach. "The New Test for Dishonesty in Criminal Law—Lessons From the Courts of Equity?." The Journal of Criminal Law 84.1 (2020): 37-48.

Li, Mei, and Emily Ho. "Uprooting the Invasive Ivey: Reversing the Effect of Ivey v Genting Casinos Ltd on the Definition of Dishonest Appropriation in the English Law of Theft." Trinity CL Rev. 22 (2019): 189.

Mosley, Ariel J., and Monica Biernat. "The new identity theft: Perceptions of cultural appropriation in intergroup contexts." Journal of Personality and Social Psychology (2020).

Ormerod, David, and Karl Laird. Smith, Hogan, and Ormerod's Text, Cases, and Materials on Criminal Law. Oxford University Press, 2020.

Schaller, William Lynch. "On Equipoise, Knowledge, and Speculation: A Unified Theory of Pleading Under the Defend Trade Secrets Act-Jurisdiction, Identification, Misappropriation, and Inevitable Disclosure." J. Intell. Prop. L. 27 (2019): 137.0

Wang, Bo. "Mistaking theft: Dishonesty ‘turns over a new leaf’." The Journal of Criminal Law 86.1 (2022): 3-17.

Wilson, William. Criminal Law. Pearson UK, 2020.