Topic

Author/Academic

Viewpoint

Source

 ‘R v Hinks, case commentary’

 Professor Sir John Smith

 We cannot express it better than the author: ‘The decision, with all respect, is

contrary to common sense. It is absurd that a person should be guilty of stealing

property which is his and in which no one else has any legal interest whatever.’

For a contrary view, see S Shute, ‘Appropriation and the law of theft’ [2002] Crim

LR 445.

 [2001] Crim LR 162 (the commentary is after the summary of the facts and the

decision)

‘Can dishonesty be salvaged? Theft and the grounding of the MSC

Napoli’

Richard Glover

The author uses the example of people looting containers from a beach in 2007 to

illustrate the test of dishonesty in theft.

(2010) 74(1) J Crim L 53–76