Legal Disputes Are Resolved by the Court's Deciding What Has

Legal disputes are resolved by the court's deciding what has happened and then determining the legal effect of those facts. Courts must therefore make decisions (rulings) on what constitutes the facts and what is the law in each case. This means that the judges and the lawyers must be clear about which matters are questions of fact - established by evidence - and which are questions of law - established by legal argument.
For example, for a person to be guilty of theft, the court must decide whether the accused has dishonestly taken ('appropriated', in technical jargon) the property of another with the intention to deprive the other permanently of that property. But which of these elements involves a question of fact and which is a question of law? And are any of them capable of being mixed questions of fact and law?
Read the following statements and decide which are correct and which are not (select all that apply) .
Note: this is quite a difficult question to answer intuitively, but have a go, because it will help you to see how the distinction operates in practice.

A) Whether or not there has been an 'appropriation' is a mixed question of fact and law.
B) Whether the appropriation was dishonest is a question of fact.
C) Whether or not the thing appropriated is 'property' is a question of law.
D) Whether or not the property 'belongs to another' is a question of law.