R v Hinks [2000]

R v Hinks [2000] UKHL 53 is a significant English criminal law case heard in the House of Lords, exploring the meaning of "appropriates" in the Theft Act 1968. The case established that acquiring an indefeasible title to property could constitute an appropriation, even if the property was obtained through a valid gift.

The Theft Act 1968 defines theft in Section 1, stating that a person is guilty if they dishonestly appropriate property belonging to another with the intention of permanently depriving the owner. Section 3 further elucidates that any assumption of the owner's rights amounts to an appropriation.

Miss Hinks, the defendant, was the main carer for Mr Dolphin, a man of limited intelligence. During 1996, Mr Dolphin withdrew £60,000 from his account, depositing it into Miss Hinks's account. In 1997, Hinks was charged with theft, arguing that the money was a gift from Mr Dolphin.

The trial revealed Mr Dolphin's naivety and trust, questioning his capacity to make decisions independently. Hinks contended that the money was a valid gift, precluding theft. The Court of Appeal rejected this, asserting that the validity of a gift was irrelevant to the appropriation question.

The central issue revolved around whether acquiring an indefeasible title to property, even through a valid gift, could be considered an appropriation under the Theft Act 1968.

The House of Lords, in a majority ruling of 3–2, held that the acquisition of an indefeasible title could amount to an appropriation. Lord Steyn delivered the majority judgment, emphasising the need to focus on the language of the Theft Act.

Lord Steyn referenced previous cases, including Lawrence v Metropolitan Police Commissioner [1972], R v Morris [1984], and R v Gomez [1993]. The court affirmed that "appropriation" should be understood as any assumption of the owner's rights, whether with or without the owner's consent.

Rejecting the defence's arguments to qualify appropriation, Lord Steyn emphasised that the mental state of the donor and the disharmony between civil and criminal law were adequately addressed by the existing legal framework.

Lord Hutton dissented, arguing that a person accepting a valid gift should not be considered dishonest, and mental incapacity should be a relevant consideration. He stressed that a person should only be guilty if the donor lacked mental capacity, and the donee knew about it, while recognising the principle of a valid gift.

R v Hinks clarified that acquiring an indefeasible title to property, even through a valid gift, constitutes an appropriation under the Theft Act 1968. The decision underscored the importance of analysing the defendant's assumption of the owner's rights, whether consented to or not, providing legal clarity in cases involving the interpretation of "appropriates" in theft offences.
Back to blog

UOL Case Bank

Upon joining, you become a valuable UOL student and gain instant access to over 2,100 case summaries. UOL Case Bank is constantly expanding. Speed up your revision with us now.

Subscribe Now

Where are our students from?

Yale University
Council of Europe
Baker Mckenzie 
University of Chicago
Columbia University
New York University
University of Michigan 
University College London (UCL)
London School of Economics (LSE)
King’s College London (KCL)
University of London
University of Manchester
University of Zurich
University of York
Brandeis University
University of Exeter
University of Sheffield
Boston University
University of Washington
University of Leeds
University of Law
Royal Holloway, University of London 
Birkbeck, University of London
SOAS, University of London
University of Kent
University of Hull
Queen’s University Belfast
Toronto Metropolitan University
Hong Kong University of Science and Technology
University of Buckingham

  • Criminal Practice

    Diagrams and Charts

    Our carefully designed diagrams and charts will guide you through complex legal issues.

  • Criminal Law

    Clear and Succinct Definitions

    Key concepts are concisely defined to help you understand legal topics quickly.

  • Property Law

    Statutory Provisions

    Statutory provisions are provided side by side with legal concepts to help you swiftly locate the relevant legislation.

  • Public Law

    Case Summaries

    We have summarised important cases for you so that you don't need to read long and boring cases.

  • Evidence

    Rules and Exceptions

    Rules and exceptions are clearly listed so that you know when a rule applies and when it doesn't.

  • Company Law


    Legal terms and key concepts are explained at the beginning of each chapter to help you learn efficiently.

  • Case Law

    Case law is provided side by side with legal concepts so that you know how legal principles and precedents were established.

  • Law Exam Guide

    Law Essay Guide

    You will learn essential law exam skills and essay writing techniques that are not taught in class.

  • Law Exam Guide

    Problem Question Guide

    We will show you how to answer problem questions step by step to achieve first-class results.

  • Conflict of Laws

    Structured Explanations

    Complex legal concepts are broken down into concise and digestible bullet point explanations.

  • Legal System and Method

    Legal Research

    You will learn legal research techniques with our study guide and become a proficient legal researcher.

  • Jurisprudence and Legal Theory


    All essential concepts, principles, and case law are included so that you can answer exam questions quickly.