answers

[lawbird]

thnkyou very much for all your answers, i'm halfway there! lol the scenario is that a student was allowed to take them from uni for 48 hours but failed to return them (chemicals had already been added to the blood for research purposes).
i've got to argue against him by saying that the blood did constiute property and hence is capable of being stolen.

[Joe_the_Lion]

As stated the blood is property as soon as it has been altered, fairly straight forward.

Are you sure it is not one of those ambigious red herring essays when the main crux will be in the dishonesty, as opposed to the actual property?

[Gmcd01]

Yes, be careful on what the opposition will argue. I would be looking to come at it as 'even if it is property, there is no dishonesty (2 tier R v Ghosh 1982 test) and although edgy, no intention to permanently deprive. If I were you, I'd also be arguing the policy of 'This case would allow anyone to carelessly borrow things if decided against us'- don't forget, you can always attack your opposition's cases and arguments if you have rebuttal. I always used to find it was easier only having notes...