|
''R v Hinks'' () (UKHL 53 ) is an English case heard by the House of Lords on appeal from the Court of Appeal of England and Wales. The case concerned the interpretation of the word "appropriates" in the Theft Act 1968. The relevant statute is as follows: * Section 1 provides: "(1) A person is guilty of theft if he dishonestly appropriates property belonging to another with the intention of permanently depriving the other of it..." * Section 3 provides: "(1) Any assumption by a person of the rights of an owner amounts to an appropriation..." The case established that in the English law of theft, the acquisition of an indefeasible title to property is capable of amounting to an Appropriation of property belonging to another for the purposes of the Theft Act 1968. Therefore, a person can appropriate property belonging to another where the other person makes him an indefeasible gift of property, retaining no proprietary interest or any right to resume or recover any proprietary interest in the property. == Facts == In 1996 Miss Hinks was friendly with a 53-year-old man, John Dolphin, who was of limited intelligence. She was his main carer. During 1996 Mr Dolphin withdrew around £60,000 from his building society account, which was deposited in Miss Hinks's account. In 1997 Hinks was charged with theft. During the trial, Mr Dolphin was described as being naïve and trusting and having no idea of the value of his assets or the ability to calculate their value. However, it was said that he would be capable of making a gift and understood the concept of ownership. Mr Dolphin was capable of making the decision to divest himself of money, but it was unlikely that he could make this decision alone. The defendant's argument was that the moneys were a gift from Mr Dolphin to Hinks, and that given that the title in the moneys had passed to her, there could be no theft. She appealed to the Court of Appeal on the grounds, ''inter alia'', that since she acquired a perfectly valid gift, there could not be an appropriation. The Court of Appeal rejected this ground of appeal, stating that the fact there has been made a valid gift is irrelevant to the question of whether there has been an appropriation. Indeed, it held that a gift may be evidence of an appropriation. Rose LJ gave the following reasons: * Section 1 of the Theft Act 1968 does not require that there has been no gift, but merely that there has been an appropriation. * Such an approach would be inconsistent with the cases of ''Lawrence v Metropolitan Police Commissioner'' () A.C. 626 and ''R v. Gomez'' () A.C. 442. * The state of mind of the donor is irrelevant, as per Lord Browne-Wilkinson (with whom Lord Jauncey agreed) in ''R v. Gomez'' () A.C. 442. It was said that the authorities maintain a strong distinction between the separate ingredients of dishonesty and Appropriation. The defendant appealed to the House of Lords. 抄文引用元・出典: フリー百科事典『 ウィキペディア（Wikipedia）』 ■ウィキペディアで「R v Hinks」の詳細全文を読む スポンサード リンク
|