R v Hinks and Clumsy (Fergie song): Difference between pages

Revision as of 19:37, 13 December 2006

Revision as of 18:48, 12 July 2007

Line 1:

{{Infobox Song <!-- See Wikipedia:WikiProject_Songs -->

{{English case infobox|

| Name = Clumsy

|name=''R v. Hinks''

| Cover = Fergiethedutchess.jpg

|court=House of Lords

| Artist = [[Fergie (singer)|Fergie]]

|date_decided=26 October 2000

| Album = [[The Dutchess]]

|full_name=Regina v. Hinks

| Released = [[September 19]], [[2006]] <small>([[United States|North America]])</small/>

|citations=[2000] UKHL 53; [2000] 3 WLR 1590

| track_no = 2

|judges=[[Gordon Slynn, Baron Slynn of Hadley|Lord Slynn of Hadley]], [[Lord Jauncey of Tullichettle]], [[Johan Steyn, Baron Steyn|Lord Steyn]], [[Brian Hutton, Baron Hutton|Lord Hutton]], [[Lord Hobhouse of Wood-borough]].

| Recorded = 2005&ndash;2006

|Cases_cited=''[[R v Lawrence]]'' [1972] AC 626 and ''[[R v Gomez]]'' [1993] 1 All ER 1

| Genre = [[R&B]]/[[Pop rock]]/[[Funk]]

|Legislation_cited=[[Theft Act 1968, ss. 1, 3.]]

| Length = 4:01

|prior_actions=

| Writers = [[Will Adams]], Stacy Ferguson, [[Bobby Troup]]

|subsequent_actions=

| Label = [[A&M Records]]

|Keywords=

| Producer = [[will.i.am]]

| Chart position =

| prev = "[[Fergalicious]]"

| prev_no = 1

| next = "All That I Got (The Make Up Song)"

| next_no = 3

}}

"'''Clumsy'''" is an [[R&B]]/[[Pop rock]]/[[Funk]] song by [[Fergie (singer)|Fergie]], it's the second track from [[The Dutchess]] the first track was "[[Fergalicious]]" and it's the second single and it features one of the members from [[The Black Eyed Peas]], [[will.i.am]]. The lead single was "[[London Bridge (Fergie song)|London Bridge]]" the fourth track. The third single was "[[Glamorous (song)|Glamorous]]" the third single, seventh track and ot's features the rapper, [[Ludacris]]. Fergie's latest single was "[[Big Girls Don't Cry (Fergie song)|Big Girls Don't Cry]]" the tenth track.

''R v. Hinks'' [[Case citation|[2000] UKHL 53]] is an English case heard by the [[Judicial functions of the House of Lords|House of Lords]] on [[appeal]] from the [[Court of Appeal of England and Wales]]. The case concerned the interpretation of the word "appropriates" in the [[Theft Act 1968]]. The relevant statute is as follows:

On the [[MTV]] News after they asked a question which they said: 'Which song do you think it should be the next single?" and Fergie answers: "Clumsy should be the next single."{{Fact|July 2007}}

* Section 1 provides: "(1) A person is guilty of theft if he dishonestly appropriates property belonging to another with the intention of permanently depriving the other of it..."

==Sample==

* Section 3 provides: "(1) Any assumption by a person of the rights of an owner amounts to an appropriation..."

This song "Clumsy" contains samples from the song called "The Girl Can't Help It" it was writteby by [[Bobby Troup]], performed by [[Little Richard]], from the album ''The Essential Little Richard''.

{{Fergie}}

The case established that in the [[Law of theft in England|English law of theft]], the acquisition of an indefeasible [[Title (property)|title]] to [[property]] is capable of amounting to an [[Appropriation (theft)|appropriation]] of property belonging to another for the purposes of the Theft Act 1968. Therefore, a person can appropriate property belonging to another where the other person makes him an indefeasible [[Gift (law)|gift]] of property, retaining no proprietary interest or any right to resume or recover any proprietary interest in the property.

[[Category: Fergie songs]]

== Facts ==

[[Category: 2006 songs]]

[[Category: Black Eyed Peas]]

In [[1996]] Miss Hinks was friendly with a 53 year old man, John Dolphin, who was of limited [[intelligence]]. She was his main [[Care of residents|carer]]. During 1996 Mr Dolphin withdrew around £60,000 from his [[building society]] [[Deposit account|account]], which was deposited in Miss Hinks's account. In 1997 Hinks was charged with theft.

[[Category: Black Eyed Peas songs]]

During the [[Trial (law)|trial]], Mr Dolphin was described as being [[Naïveté|naïve]] and trusting and having no idea of the value of his assets or the ability to calculate their value. However, it was said that he would be capable of making a gift and understood the concept of [[ownership]]. Mr Dolphin was capable of making the decision to divest himself of money, but it was unlikely that he could make this decision alone. The [[Defense (legal)|defendant's]] argument was that the moneys were a gift from Mr Dolphin to Hinks, and that given that the title in the moneys had passed to her, there could be no theft.

She appealed to the Court of Appeal on the grounds, inter alia, that since she acquired a perfectly valid gift, there could not be an appropriation. The Court of Appeal rejected this ground of appeal, stating that the fact there has been made a valid gift is irrelevant to the question of whether there has been an appropriation. Indeed, it held that a gift may be evidence of an appropriation. [[Rose LJ]] gave the following reasons:

* Section 1 of the Theft Act 1968 does not require that there has been no gift, but merely that there has been an appropriation.

* Such an approach would be inconsistent with the cases of ''[[R v. Lawrence]]'' [1992] A.C. 626 and ''[[R v. Gomez]]'' [1993] A.C. 442.

* The state of mind of the donor is irrelevant, as per [[Lord Browne-Wilkinson]] (with whom [[Lord Jauncey]] agreed) in ''R v. Gomez'' [1993] A.C. 442. It was said that the authorities maintain a strong distinction between the separate ingredients of [[Dishonesty (theft)|dishonesty]] and [[Appropriation (theft)|appropriation]].

The defendant appealed the the House of Lords.

== Ruling ==

The court ruled by a bare majority (3:2) in favour of the respondent; namely, that the acquisition of an indefeasible [[Title (property)|title]] to [[property]] is capable of amounting to an [[Appropriation (theft)|appropriation]] of property belonging to another for the purposes of the Theft Act 1968.

[[Johan Steyn, Baron Steyn|Lord Steyn]] gave the sole substantive judgment for the majority (with whom [[Gordon Slynn, Baron Slynn of Hadley|Lord Slynn of Hadley]] and [[Lord Jauncey of Tullichettle]] agreed).

[[Brian Hutton, Baron Hutton|Lord Hutton]] and [[Lord Hobhouse of Wood-Borough]] gave dissenting judgments.

=== Lord Steyn ===

Lord Steyn stated that the starting point must be the words of the [[Theft Act 1968]], as interpreted by the House of Lords in previous decisions. He cited three House of Lords cases:

* ''[[R v. Lawrence]]'' [1992] A.C. 626, which held that in a [[prosecution]] for theft it is unnecessary to prove that the taking was without the owner's [[consent]].

* ''[[R v. Morris]]'' [1984] A.C. 320, in which [[Lord Roskill]]'s judgment conflicted with that of ''[[R v. Lawrence]]''. He stated that "''the concept of appropriation in my view involves not an act expressly or impliedly authorised by the owner but an act by way of adverse interference with or usurpation of those rights.''"<ref>[1984] A.C. 322D</ref> This disparity was resolved in the following case:

* ''[[R v. Gomez]]'' [1993] A.C. 442, where the court held by a majority ([[Lord Lowry]] dissenting) that there can be an appropriation where that which is alleged to be stolen passes to the defendant with the consent of the owner, but that consent has been obtained by a false representation. The court added that such a passing of property need not involve an element of adverse interference with, or usurpation of, some right of the owner. Lord Roskill's comments in ''[[R v. Morris]]'' (cited above) were disapproved.

His Lordship noted that the case law interprets section 3(1) of the Theft Act 1968 by treating "appropriation" as a neutral word comprehending "''any assumption by a person of the rights of an owner.''" In other words, it is immaterial whether the act was done with the owner's consent or authority.

His Lordship then turned to the appellant's arguments. [[Counsel]] had argued that the effect of the decisions in ''[[R v. Lawrence]]'' and ''[[R v. Gomez]]'' was to reduce the [[actus reus]] of theft to a "vanishing point". Lord Steyn was unconvinced by these arguments and maintained that the House of Lords had not overlooked the consequences in its previous decisions. His Lordship was motivated by a concern that if the law is restated by adopting a narrower definition of appropriation, the outcome is likely to place beyond the reach of the criminal law dishonest persons who should be found [[Guilt|guilty]] of theft.

Counsel for the defendant also highlighted the conflict between [[Civil law (common law)|civil]] and [[criminal law]] that would result from a broad interpretation of the word "appropriates", along with the "grotesque and absurd" results that such a decision would allow. Lord Steyn, however, accepted that in a practical world there would always be a disharmony between the two systems and noted that in this disharmony it is not necessarily the criminal law that is defective. He therefore declined to depart from the rulings in ''[[R v. Gomez]]'' and ''[[R v. Lawrence]]''.

His Lordship pointed out that the [[Mens rea|mental requirements]] of the law of theft offer adequate protection from the [[injustice]] that would otherwise result from a broad interpretation of the word "appropriates".

For these reasons, Lord Steyn rejected the appellant's counsel's argument that the law as expounded in ''[[R v. Gomez]]'' and ''[[R v. Lawrence]]'' must be qualified to say that there can be no appropriation unless the other party (the owner) retains some proprietary interest, or the right to resume or recover some proprietary interest, in the property. He also declined to accept the counsel's alternative argument that "appropriates" should be interpreted as if the word "unlawfully" preceded it.

=== Lord Hutton ===

=== Lord Hobhouse ===

== Legal Context ==

== Criticism ==

== See also ==

* [[List of United Kingdom House of Lords Cases]]

* [[Theft]]

== External links ==

* [http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKHL/2000/53.html Full text of judgment]

== References ==

<references/>

[[Category:English law]]

[[Category:English criminal law]]

[[Category:English case law]]

[[Category:2000 in law]]

[[Category:2000 in the United Kingdom]]