Disclaimer: This work was produced by one of our professional writers as a learning aid to help you with your studies.
If you would like to view other samples of the academic work produced by our writers, please click here.
R v Hinks  UKHL 53
Unlawful appropriation of “gifted” money under the Theft Act 1968
The defendant (H) was a carer for a man of limited intelligence (D). H persuaded D to make a series of payments to her from his bank account which she contended were gifts. H was charged with theft.
The key issue for the House of Lords to consider was whether there was an “appropriation” in terms of section 1 of the Theft Act 1968 where H accepted a gift of property from the D in circumstances where the D was not entitled, as a matter of civil law, to have the gift set aside or the value returned. H argued that she had acquired a valid gift and, accordingly, there was no appropriation as appropriation requires the victim to retain some proprietary interest or right to resume or recover some proprietary interest in the property (R v Morris  AC 320).
The effect of the earlier decisions in R v Gomez  AC 442 and Lawrence v Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis  A.C. 626 is that the meaning of “appropriates” in section 1 of the Theft Act 1968 places increased emphasis on dishonesty. Therefore, based on Lawrence and Gomez, the Court rejected the submission that a person does not appropriate property unless the victim retains some proprietary interest or the right to resume or recover some proprietary interest. A gift could be appropriation where the grantee had acted dishonestly. Furthermore, the Court held that an act does not require to be unlawful under the general law to constitute an “appropriation.”
Related ServicesView all
DMCA / Removal Request
If you are the original writer of this essay and no longer wish to have the essay published on the UK Essays website then please: