# data[].attributes.body
1) where there is no evidence of lack capacity, a valid gift should not constitute a criminal offence.

2) Where proprietary interest has passed to a defendant by way of a valid gift, to hold them liable liable in criminal law for the offence of theft would represent a conflict between criminal and civil law.

3) The effect of Hinks places an over reliance on the mens rea of dishonesty which is contrary to Art 7 ECHR due to the uncertain nature of the test.

4) Aim of the law of theft in criminal law is to protect property. Proprietary rights form the foundation of criminal law of theft and therefore the decision in Hinks is contrary to parliamentary intention.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Shute - Appropriation and the law of theft

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Dishonest appropriation after Gomez and Hinks

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Extract from Smith and Hogan 17th Edition