Essay question: "The House of Lords' decisions in Gomez and Hinks have rendered the law of theft incoherent and over-broad. The offence should be confined to non-consensual takings." Discuss.
---
Introduction
The proposition reflects a persistent critique of modern theft law: that the expansive interpretation of "appropriation" in R v Gomez [1993] AC 442 and R v Hinks [2001] 2 AC 241 has blurred the line between theft and consensual (though fraudulent or morally dubious) transactions, undermining legal certainty and over-criminalising conduct. This essay argues that while Gomez and Hinks do create tensions—particularly at the interface of criminal and civil law—the charge of incoherence is overstated. The offence remains workable, and dishonesty provides a meaningful constraint. Nevertheless, there are normative and rule-of-law reasons to prefer a narrower definition, and the current law merits reconsideration.
I. The statutory language and legislative intent
Section 3(1) of the Theft Act 1968 provides that "any assumption by a person of the rights of an owner amounts to an appropriation." The breadth of "any assumption" supports the Gomez interpretation. The Criminal Law Revision Committee's Eighth Report (Cmnd 2977, 1966) sought to simplify the law by adopting a wide concept of appropriation, replacing the old law's complex distinctions. There is no express requirement that appropriation be non-consensual.
Moreover, Lawrence v Metropolitan Police Commissioner [1972] AC 626 had already suggested that consent does not negate appropriation, though the reasoning was ambiguous. Gomez can be seen as clarifying, rather than revolutionising, the law.
Yet the legislative history is not conclusive. The CLRC may have assumed that dishonesty would filter out consensual dealings, not anticipating that the courts would allow theft convictions for valid gifts (Hinks). The statute's silence on consent may reflect oversight rather than deliberate policy.
II. The coherence challenge: civil law vs criminal law
The principal coherence objection is that Hinks permits theft of property to which the defendant has valid civil title. In Hinks, the donor made valid inter vivos gifts; no civil claim (undue influence, incapacity, unjust enrichment) succeeded. Yet the defendant was convicted of theft. As Lord Hobhouse noted in dissent, this creates an incoherence: D is simultaneously the lawful owner and a thief.
Shute and others argue this violates the rule of law. Citizens cannot know what is permitted if lawful conduct can nevertheless attract criminal sanction. The criminal law should not contradict the civil law's authoritative determination of entitlement.
However, the majority in Hinks and academic defenders (Simester, Sullivan) respond that the criminal law protects different interests and applies different standards. The civil law asks: who has title? The criminal law asks: did D act in a way that merits punishment? These questions may yield different answers. Analogy: consensual fist-fights may be lawful in tort but criminal under R v Brown [1994] 1 AC 212.
Moreover, dishonesty is the critical filter. The civil law's finding that no equitable wrong occurred does not resolve whether D's conduct was dishonest by the standards of ordinary people. A jury might properly conclude that exploiting a vulnerable donor's generosity, even if not actionable in equity, is dishonest and merits criminalisation.
That said, the doctrine does risk inconsistency and uncertainty. Hinks offers no clear guidance on when a gift is dishonest. Post-Ivey, the test is whether ordinary people would regard D's conduct as dishonest, given D's knowledge of the facts. This leaves juries with considerable discretion, and outcomes may vary.
III. Over-breadth and the collapse of theft/fraud distinctions
Gomez effectively abolished the distinction between theft and obtaining by deception (now fraud). Before Gomez, theft required a non-consensual taking; obtaining property by deception involved consent procured by fraud. After Gomez, both are theft if D is dishonest.
This creates over-breadth in two senses. First, conduct historically treated as fraud (deception offences, now Fraud Act 2006) can also be prosecuted as theft, leading to arbitrary charging decisions. Second, the label "thief" may mischaracterise defendants who fraudulently induce transactions: their wrong is abuse of trust or dishonesty, not the unilateral violation connoted by "theft."
Green and others argue that the expressive function of criminal labels matters. Theft implies a taking against the will; fraud implies manipulation of consent. Conflating them obscures moral differences and may undermine public understanding of verdicts.
Countering this, one might observe that the Fraud Act 2006 now provides a distinct label, and prosecutors can charge fraud where appropriate. Overlap is not necessarily problematic: many offences overlap (assault and battery; murder and manslaughter), and prosecutorial discretion manages this. Moreover, the broad definition ensures no gaps: all dishonest appropriations are caught.
IV. The case for a narrower definition
Several arguments favour confining theft to non-consensual takings:
- Clarity and certainty: A narrower definition would restore a clearer boundary. Citizens would know that consensual transactions, however dubious, are not theft (though they may be fraud). This promotes rule-of-law values.
- Respect for autonomy: Consent is normatively significant. Even if the victim is vulnerable or misled, recognising their consent respects their agency. The law can protect them via undue influence, fraud, or capacity doctrines without labelling the transaction as theft.
- Alignment with civil law: A requirement of non-consent would avoid the civil/criminal conflict seen in Hinks. The law would speak with one voice on whether the defendant's acquisition was wrongful.
- Comparative perspective: Most civilian and several common-law jurisdictions require non-consent for theft. England's position is anomalous and arguably indefensible.
*V. The case for retaining Gomez and Hinks***
Equally, there are strong pragmatic and normative reasons to retain the current law:
- Simplicity: The bright-line rule that any assumption of rights is appropriation is easy to apply. Juries need not parse whether the victim "truly" consented.
- Protection of the vulnerable: Hinks allows prosecution of those who exploit the old, the mentally impaired, or the gullible, even when the civil law offers no remedy. This is a legitimate criminal-law goal.
- No gaps: A narrower definition might exclude some dishonest conduct (e.g., where consent is procured by non-deceptive pressure or where the fraud is difficult to prove).
- Dishonesty as a robust filter: Post-Ivey, dishonesty is an objective, community-based standard. It should prevent conviction of those engaged in legitimate transactions. If the standard is applied rigorously, over-criminalisation concerns are overstated.
Conclusion
The law of theft post-Gomez and Hinks is not incoherent, but it is controversial. The decisions reflect a policy choice to prioritise protection of victims and simplicity of proof over sharp doctrinal boundaries and deference to civil entitlements. Whether that choice is sound depends on one's view of the criminal law's function: is it primarily to punish violations of rights (which would favour a narrower definition) or to condemn dishonest conduct causing harm (which supports the current approach)?
On balance, the normative and rule-of-law arguments for confining theft to non-consensual takings are weighty. The Law Commission's recommendation to this effect deserves serious consideration. However, any reform must ensure that fraud offences adequately cover consensual but dishonest transactions, so that narrowing theft does not create impunity. Until such reform is enacted, Gomez and Hinks remain binding, and defendants and practitioners must navigate the broad, dishonesty-centred regime they establish.
(Word count: approx. 1,320)