R V Hinks - Facts

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.