![11.5.1 The issue of the meaning of ‘dishonestly appropriates’ Section 3(1) of the Theft Act 1968 defines appropriation as ‘Any assumption by a person of the rights of an owner’ which includes coming by property innocently but then assuming the rights of an owner. Importantly for Mary, in the case of Anderton v Burnside [1983] 3 All ER 288 HL, Lord Roskill commented (obiter dictum):](https://images.tandf.co.uk/common/jackets/crclarge/978185941/9781859417836.jpg "11.5.1 The issue of the meaning of ‘dishonestly appropriates’ Section 3(1) of the Theft Act 1968 defines appropriation as ‘Any assumption by a person of the rights of an owner’ which includes coming by property innocently but then assuming the rights of an owner. Importantly for Mary, in the case of Anderton v Burnside [1983] 3 All ER 288 HL, Lord Roskill commented (obiter dictum):")
ABSTRACT
However, it was an obiter comment not ratio and the facts are not similar, as Anderton involved the swapping of price labels. But Roskill’s comments are highly relevant as Mary believes she has permission for her act. A permission based on past practice, being flatmates and being good friends. However, perhaps some doubt has been cast on the validity of this dictum by the House of Lords in Gomez [1992] AC 442. They held the dictum wrong, yet when considering the circumstances in Gomez the implied consent was not there. In Gomez, a taxi driver, when offered the wallet of a foreign passenger and told to take the fare, took too much. There was no implied consent to take money generally; the only implied consent was to take the fare. Importantly for Mary s 3(1) refers to the person who comes by property without stealing and later assumes the rights of an owner. Mary believes she has permission to take the money for a skirt. Does that cover her later use of the money for entertainment? Or was the implied consent conditional upon the precise use the money was put to?
