R v Hinks
A person can appropriate property for theft even if she receives it as a valid gift.
Facts
Karen Hinks befriended Mr Dolphin, a man of limited intelligence who was naive and trusting, and became his main carer. Over a period of months, he withdrew about £60,000 from his building society account, which was paid into her account, and gave her a television set. The jury found that he had the mental capacity to make a valid gift. Ms Hinks was convicted of theft, and argued that she could not have appropriated property that had been validly given to her.
Legal principle
The House of Lords upheld the conviction, by a majority of three to two. Lord Steyn said that, following Lawrence and Gomez, an acceptance of a gift can be an appropriation, even if the gift is valid in civil law, and the protection against convicting people who receive gifts in good faith is the requirement of dishonesty. The jury had found that Ms Hinks acted dishonestly, applying the then test in R v Ghosh. Lord Hobhouse dissented, saying that it was wrong for the criminal law to treat as theft a transaction that was valid in civil law.
Related cases on theft, robbery, burglary and fraud
- Attorney General's Reference (No 1 of 1983) [1985] QB 182
- Corcoran v Anderton (1980) 71 Cr App R 104
- Ivey v Genting Casinos (UK) Ltd [2017] UKSC 67, [2018] AC 391
- Lawrence v Metropolitan Police Commissioner [1972] AC 626
- Oxford v Moss (1979) 68 Cr App R 183
- R v Barton and Booth [2020] EWCA Crim 575, [2021] QB 685
- R v Collins [1973] QB 100
- R v Ghosh [1982] QB 1053
Studying criminal law? Our tutors help you understand and apply cases like this in essays, problem questions and exams. Request a quote or browse our law notes.
This summary is for study and revision and is not legal advice. Although our case summaries are checked for accuracy, we do not guarantee that they are free from errors or omissions. Always read the full judgment for the court's reasoning.
