Regina v Shuck: CACD 1992

The defendant was a company officer. He gave instructions to an innocent third party which resulted in the dishonest diversion of substantial sums of the company’s money. He appealed the judge’s interpretation of the word ‘appropriation.’
Held: The meaning of appropriation still had its difficulties. If there is an intention on the part of the owner to pass all his property rights to another so that that other gets a voidable title, there is nothing left for him to appropriate. Morris was to be preferred to Lawrence if there was a conflict. The question was whether the agent had exercised independent judgment. The judges direction was correct: ‘in the final analysis, what you have to look at as amatter of common sense is who was calling the shots.’


[1992] Crim LR 209


Theft Act 1968


England and Wales


CitedLawrence v Metropolitan Police Commissioner HL 30-Jun-1971
The defendant, a taxi driver, had without objection on the part of an Italian student asked for a fare of andpound;6 for a journey for which the correct lawful fare was 10s 6d. The taxi driver was convicted of theft. On appeal the main contention . .
PreferredRegina v Morris (David); Anderton v Burnside HL 2-Jan-1983
The defendants had been accused of theft. One switched labels on a joint of pork in a supermarket, and the other presented the meat with the now cheaper label for purchase.
Held: The appeals were dismissed. There can be no conviction for theft . .

Cited by:

CitedDirector of Public Prosecutions v Gomez HL 3-Dec-1992
The defendant worked as a shop assistant. He had persuaded the manager to accept in payment for goods, two cheques which he knew to be stolen. The CA had decided that since the ownership of the goods was transferred on the sale, no appropriation of . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.


Updated: 06 May 2022; Ref: scu.214210