Topic

‘R v Hinks, case commentary’

Author/Academic

Professor Sir John Smith

Viewpoint

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.

Source

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

Topic

‘Theft as Exploitation’

Author/Academic

Alan Bogg and John Stanton-Ife

Viewpoint

The authors explore what is the wrong at the heart of theft and offer a defence of Hinks.

Source

(2003) 23 Legal Studies 402