判决理由
Appropriation for the purposes of theft can occur even where the owner consents to the transfer and the recipient obtains indefeasible title. The concept of appropriation is neutral — it is dishonesty that makes the conduct criminal.
事实
Karen Hinks befriended a naive and trusting man of limited intelligence and influenced him to withdraw £60,000 from his building society account and deposit it in her account. She was charged with theft.
判决摘要
The House of Lords (3-2) held that a person can appropriate property even if the owner makes a valid gift. Following Gomez, appropriation is a neutral act meaning 'any assumption of the rights of an owner'. It is the element of dishonesty that determines whether the appropriation is criminal.
关键引述
"The dictum in Lawrence that appropriation can occur even with the owner's consent applies equally to gifts."
— Lord Steyn
后续处理
Confirmed the wide interpretation of appropriation established in Gomez, though remains academically controversial.