Criminal lawTheft - defendant given sums of money by person of low intelligence - acquisition of indefeasible title - capable of being 'appropriation' from ownerR v Hinks: HL (Lord Slynn of Hadley, Lord Jauncey of Tullichettle, Lord Steyn, Lord Hutton and Lord Hobhouse of Woodborough): 26 October 2000

The defendant made friends with D, a man of limited intelligence.

D withdrew sums totalling about 60,000 from his building society account.

Those sums were then deposited in the defendant's account.

The defendant was charged with several counts of theft, the prosecution case being that she had influenced or coerced D to withdraw the money.

The defendant said D had given her the money as gifts or as part of a loan, and said she had acted honestly throughout.

The jury convicted the defendant and the Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) upheld the convictions.

She appealed, the question certified for the House of Lords being whether the acquisition of an indefeasible title to property was capable of amounting to an appropriation of property belonging to another for the purposes of s.1(1) to the Theft Act 1968.

Roger Smith QC (who did not appear below) and Anthony Lowe (instructed by Cox McQueen Howard Tain, Walsall) for the defendant.

Jeremy Roberts QC, and David Perry (both of whom did not appear below) and Malcolm Morse (instructed by the Crown Prosecution Service) for the Crown.

Held, dismissing the appeal (Lord Hutton and Lord Hobhouse of Woodborough dissenting) that the decisions of the House of Lords in R v Lawrence [1972] AC 626 and R v Gomez [1993] AC 442 had not produced injustice and in practice the mental element which had to be proved before a conviction for theft was an adequate protection against injustice; that 'appropriation' in s.3(1) of the Theft Act 1968 was to be treated as a neutral word comprehending any assumption by a person of the owner's rights; that the principal submission for the defence, namely that a person did not 'appropriate' property unless the owner retained, beyond the instant of the alleged theft, some proprietary interest or the right to resume or recover some proprietary interest, was directly contrary to the holdings in Lawrence and Gomez and must be rejected; and that, accordingly, the certified question must be answered in the affirmative.

(WLR)