Summarise the definition of theft as if you were explaining it to the court in the moot question, below. 

Part 2

Mary was a volunteer at a local authority day care centre. The centre provided support and care for elderly members of the community. Ted, a 90 year old man developed a fondness for Mary and gave her his valuable medal collection to say thank you for all of her kindness. Mary accepted the gift and was charged with theft of the medal. 

 At Mary’s trial the judge directed the jury on the meaning of ‘appropriation’ by drawing on the statutory definition in the Theft Act 1968 and relevant judgments of the House of Lords. The jury returned a guilty verdict and Mary appealed against her conviction to the Court of Appeal. Her appeal was dismissed and she now appeals to the Supreme Court on the ground that the House of Lords’ interpretation of ‘appropriation’ in Hinks was unwarranted by its statutory definition and should not be followed. 

Prepare a presentation between 1-5 minutes on behalf of the appellant.  Your presentation should include:

►    citing the Hinks case out loud, using the correct terminology; and

►    guiding the judge to the following quote (which you will need to find) from Lord Steyn in Hinks and explaining to the judge how this quote (and/or others of your own from Hinks) supports the appellant’s argument:

‘…In other words, it is immaterial whether the act was done with the owner’s consent or authority…Gomez therefore gives effect to section 3(1) of the [Theft] Act by treating ‘appropriation’ as a neutral word comprehending ‘any assumption by a person of the rights of an owner’…’