... Dilhorne states that 'The first question posed in the certificate [certifying a general point of general public importance] was: 'Whether section 1(1) of the Theft Act 1968, is to be construed as though it contained the words 'without the consent of the owner' or words to that effect.' In my opinion, the answer is clearly No.' In Morris, Lord Roskill asserts that '...the concept of appropriation involves not an act expressly or impliedly authorised by the owner but an act by way of adverse interference with or usurpation of those rights' The situation is not entirely clear from Lawrence and Morris, however, the clarification can be found in R v Gomez [1993] 1 All ER 1(HL) where it was held that 'While it was correct to say appropriation included an act not expressly or impliedly authorised by the owner but an act by way of adverse interference with or usurpation of ...

See this essay or coursework document in full right now