The case of R v Hinks [2000] UKHL 53 is a leading authority in English criminal law that examined the meaning of “appropriation” under the Theft Act 1968. The House of Lords considered whether accepting a valid civil law gift could amount to appropriation for the purposes of theft. The decision clarified the distinction between civil and criminal law principles and reinforced the interpretation of appropriation established in earlier cases such as Lawrence v Metropolitan Police Commissioner and R v Gomez.
Legal Framework
The relevant statute was the Theft Act 1968, particularly:
- Section 1(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(1): “Any assumption by a person of the rights of an owner amounts to an appropriation…”
The central question was how “appropriates” should be interpreted, especially in circumstances where property is transferred by way of a voluntary gift.
Facts of R v Hinks
In 1996, Miss Hinks became friendly with John Dolphin, a 53-year-old man of limited intelligence. She was his main carer. During this period, Mr Dolphin withdrew about £60,000 from his building society account and deposited it into Miss Hinks’s account.
Evidence at trial described Mr Dolphin as naïve and trusting, lacking awareness of the value of his assets. He was said to be capable of making a gift and understanding the concept of ownership, but it was unlikely that he could make such a financial decision independently.
Miss Hinks argued that the transfers were valid gifts. She maintained that since legal title in the money passed to her, there could be no theft.
In 1997, she was charged with theft. She appealed her conviction to the Court of Appeal, contending that the existence of a valid gift precluded appropriation. The Court of Appeal dismissed this argument, holding that a valid gift does not prevent an appropriation from taking place. The defendant then appealed to the House of Lords.
Issues Before the Court
The House of Lords in R v Hinks considered a narrow but significant issue:
- Whether the acceptance of a valid gift could amount to an appropriation under the Theft Act 1968, even when the donor had no proprietary interest remaining and no right to recover the property.
The argument put forward by the defence relied on the interpretation in R v Morris, where appropriation was linked to adverse interference with the rights of the owner. Miss Hinks’s case sought to rely on this reasoning, claiming that appropriation cannot occur if property has been transferred as a gift.
R v Hinks Judgement
By a majority of 3–2, the House of Lords dismissed the appeal and ruled against the defendant. The court confirmed that the acquisition of an indefeasible title to property can still constitute an appropriation under the Theft Act 1968.
Majority Opinion
The leading judgement was given by Lord Steyn, with whom Lord Slynn of Hadley and Lord Jauncey of Tullichettle agreed.
Lord Steyn emphasised that appropriation is a neutral term that covers “any assumption by a person of the rights of an owner”. It is irrelevant whether the owner consents to the transfer or whether the transfer takes place as a gift.
He referred to the House of Lords decisions in:
- Lawrence v Metropolitan Police Commissioner [1972] AC 626, which held that lack of consent was not essential for appropriation.
- R v Morris [1984] AC 320, where Lord Roskill’s view suggested appropriation required adverse interference, but this was later disapproved.
- R v Gomez [1993] AC 442, where it was decided that appropriation can occur even with the consent of the owner, particularly when that consent was obtained by deception.
Lord Steyn rejected the defence’s submission that there could be no appropriation unless the donor retained some proprietary interest in the property. He also dismissed the argument that “appropriates” should be read as if the word “unlawfully” preceded it.
His Lordship accepted that some tension might exist between civil and criminal law, but he concluded that this disharmony was inevitable and did not undermine the criminal law’s function. The mental elements of theft — dishonesty and the intention to permanently deprive — provided sufficient safeguards against injustice.
Dissenting Opinions
The dissenting judges were Lord Hutton and Lord Hobhouse of Woodborough.
- Lord Hutton agreed that appropriation had occurred but expressed concerns about dishonesty in cases of gifts. He argued it was contrary to common sense to deem someone dishonest merely for accepting a gift, regardless of the moral issues involved. He referred to Section 2(1)(b) of the Theft Act, which provides that appropriation is not dishonest if the defendant believes that the owner would consent to it.
- He proposed that if the donor was mentally capable of making a gift, then the donee should not be guilty of theft. If, however, the donor lacked capacity, then guilt should depend on whether the donee knew of this incapacity and acted dishonestly by the standards of ordinary people.
- Lord Hobhouse concurred with Lord Hutton’s reasoning.
Despite their arguments, the majority position prevailed, and the conviction was upheld.
Conclusion
The case of R v Hinks [2000] UKHL 53 remains a cornerstone in the interpretation of theft under English law. By confirming that a valid gift can constitute appropriation, the House of Lords broadened the scope of criminal liability in theft offences. Although controversial, the ruling ensured that dishonest individuals could not evade conviction simply because property was transferred to them as a gift.
The case underlines the principle that criminal law serves a different function from civil law, and while tension between the two systems may exist, dishonesty operates as the central safeguard in distinguishing criminal acts from legitimate transactions.