The position as a result is, that the Court must form a view of what the Defendant's belief was, of the relevant facts (but it is no longer necessary to consider whether the Defendant concerned, believed that what he did was dishonest at the time). The decision of whether a Particular Action or Set of Actions is Dishonest remains separate from the Issue of Moral Justification. For example, when Robin Hood robbed the Sheriff of Nottingham, he knew that he was, in effect, stealing from the Crown, and knew that he was acting dishonestly and would have been properly convicted of Robbery. His argument would have been that he was morally justified in acting in this way, but in Modern Legal Terms, this could only have been brought to the Court by way of Mitigation of Sentencing and would not have affected the Inference of Dishonesty. It is clear that the New Trend in English Law is for the Actions of the Defendant to be Only Tested OBJECTIVELY and will not apply as a Test to determine the Subjective State of Mind of the Defendant. This Court will therefore, examine the evidence led by the Prosecution and Defence in regard to Misappropriation, or Conversion or Use or Disposal to determine whether these Acts were carried out in a Dishonest Fashion. A Person must Knowingly Misappropriate the Money, and cannot commit the Crime by making a Mistake or Error. A Person who misappropriates Funds does not have to intend to actually physically take the Money. It can be enough for the Prosecution to show that the Defendant intended to take any action that results (or would likely result) in the Misappropriation of Funds. In some instances, the Defendant must know the action is illegal; while in other instances, the Defendant only has to act intentionally and does not need to know that the Conduct is Criminal. PROSECUTION’S 5TH DUTY TO PROVE: MISAPPROPRIATION, OR CONVERSION OR DISPOSAL AND USE Under this head, it is important to note that Section 311 of the Penal Code, the Definitive Section, lists the Elements of the Offence in a DISJUNCTIVE FASHION by the consistent use of the word “OR”. This is to say that any of the under listed could operate independently in order to establish the Offence, as proof of one, dispenses with proof of the others. Whilst Entrustment is paired with Dominion, the Prosecution may then decide to proceed on the basis of any of the Four Options, or what this Court will call theQuadruplet Modes, through which the Entrustment or Dominion was breached. It is very important to understand, that none of the Quadruplet Modes takes greater preeminence over the other, as Proof of one is sufficient to sustain the Charge. The Prosecution is expected to establish that the Defendant as Public Servant, being Entrusted or having Dominion over both the Ecological Funds and Funds of Plateau State Government: a) Misappropriated the Ecological Funds and Funds of Plateau State Government; OR b) Converted the Ecological Funds and Funds of Plateau State Government to his own Use; OR c) Used the Ecological Funds and Funds of Plateau State Government; OR d) Disposed the EcologicalFunds and Funds of Plateau State Government OR by Intentionally OR Willfully allowing any other Person(s) to do so.It is also worthy of note that in regard to the element of Disposal, the Section again, appears to widen up by expanding the Defendant’s Culpability under this Charge to include his Influence or Interference in Causing or Affecting another Person’s Actions by suffering him to Dispose of the Property. 110