Logged out
Access All our Essays in an Instant
Swap your work for FREE access, or pay £4.99 for instant access
Critically analyse whether the House of Lords in Hinks (2000) were right to find that the acquisition of the indefeasible title to property is an appropriation of property belonging to another for the purposes of s1(1) Theft Act 1968.
Member rating: No Rating | Words: | Submitted: Wed Feb 25 2004
Page Preview
On the left is an image preview of every page of this document, and below are the first 150 words with formatting removed:
Criminal Law Coursework Critically analyse whether the House of Lords in Hinks (2000) were right to find that the acquisition of the indefeasible title to property is an appropriation of property belonging to another for the purposes of s1(1) Theft Act 1968. The law of theft expresses society's view of the extend to which property rights ought to be protected. It is extremely difficult to draw the line between what is acceptable and what should be subject to criminal sanctions. Therefore, in some cases the judge's decision can be questionable and it can be argued that the courts have drawn the line in the wrong place. Hinks falls into this category. Can a person "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? Incredibly, following the decision of the...
To see the full version of this document, and 145,332 others
