Westlaw UK Delivery Summary Request made by : IP USER SHIBBOLETH Request made on: Saturday 31 December 2016 at 13:48 GMT Client ID: ukfederation Content Type Journals Title : Appropriation and the law of theft Delivery selection: Current Document Number of documents delivered: 1 Sweet & Maxwell is part of Thomson Reuters. © 2016 Thomson Reuters (Professional) UK Limited. Page1 Criminal Law Review 2002 Appropriation and the law of theft Stephen Shute Subject: Criminal law Keywords: Appropriation; Consent; Dishonesty; Theft Cases: DPP v Gomez (Edwin)  A.C. 442 (HL) R. v Hinks (Karen Maria)  2 A.C. 241 (HL) *Crim. L.R. 445 Summary: The decision of the House of Lords in Hinks has provoked extreme hostility from academic criminal lawyers. This article explains why much of that criticism is mistaken. There can be no doubt that some criminal lawyers had high hopes for the Theft Act 1968. They believed that Act 1968 (now to be found in section 148 of the Powers of Criminal Courts (Sentencing) Act 2000) for the criminal courts to order the “restitution” of stolen property. Unlike a compensation order however a “restitution” order can only be made in favour of a person with a pre-existing entitlement to recover the stolen goods. It is not therefore available in cases such as Hinks. 60. See  3 W.L.R. 1590 at p.1595 per Lord Steyn. 61. See n.29 above. 62. For an argument that Gomez not only flies in the face of the Committee Report that preceded that Theft Act 1968 but fails to pay proper attention to the moral arguments in favour of keeping theft and obtaining property by deception as separate offences see S. Shute and J. Horder “Thieving and Deceiving: What is the Difference?” (1993) 56 M.L.R. 548. © 2016 Sweet & Maxwell and its Contributors [...]
This Essay has to be done complying with Oscola referencing system Shute, in his case comment, ‘Appropriation and the Law of Theft; (2002) Criminal Law Review 450-7, analyses and critically evaluates the decisions of the House of Lords in R v Hinks  2 AC 241 (HL) Briefly identify the key arguments advanced by Shute in his analysis of this case and, giving reasons, discuss whether Shute’s critical evaluation of the decision is persuasively argued.