| |
| | DPP v Gomez, HL decision |
 | | Prior to the passage of the Theft Act 1968, which made radical changes in and greatly simplified the law relating to theft and some other offences, it was necessary to prove that the property alleged to have been stolen was taken `without the consent of the owner (Larceny Act 1916, section 1(1)). |
 | | A reading of the Act of 1968, which was based on the draft Bill annexed to the report, leads me to the conclusion that, when using the very words of the draft, Parliament intended to implement the committees thinking. |
 | | If `converts in the [Act of 1916] implied an unauthorised act, notwithstanding its proximity to the definition of larceny with its requirement of the absence of the owners consent, there is, a fortiori, no reason why the word `appropriates in the [Act of 1968] should not be similarly construed. |
| www.leeds.ac.uk /law/hamlyn/gomez-hl.htm (17903 words) |
|