L39. Theft- Intention to Permanently Deprive PDF

Preview

Summary

this criminal law lecture explains the intention to permanently deprive within the offence of fraud...

Description

L39. Theft: Intention to Permanently Deprive General Definition The general definition of theft is contained in s.1(1) Theft Act 1968. ⁃ ‘A person is guilty of theft if he dishonestly appropriates property belonging to another with the intention of permanently depriving the other of it.’

Mens Rea of Theft: Intention to Permanently Deprive ⁃ D must intent to permanently deprive V of his property. ⁃ Borrowing without consent does NOT constitute to theft. Intention takes place at the moment of appropriation. ⁃ E.G. if I take your watch with the intention to keep it, but later discover the sentimental value of the watch and then return it to you, I have still committed theft because at the time of the appropriation, I had the intention to permanently deprive the owner of their watch. ‘It is immaterial whether the appropriation is made with a view to gain, or is made for the thief’s own benefit.’ ~s.1(2) Theft Act (1968)

The Extended Notion of Permanent Deprivation The intention of permanently depriving the other of it is not defined by the theft act. However s.6. extends the natural meaning of the phrase and provides that in certain circumstances, even though the defendant did not mean the other to lose the thing permanently, he is to be regarded as having an intention of permanent deprivation. • Certain borrowings for a period of time and in circumstances can be equivalent to an outright taking or disposal E.G. A borrows B’s football season ticket and then returns the piece of paper at the end of the season after watching all the matches. At that stage, the ticket has no value and is useless.

Lloyd (1985) 3 WLR 30 In this case, film reels were removed from a cinema for a few hours, and pirate copies were made of them. The originals were then returned. ⁃ The court found that the goodness, the virtue, the practical value of the films to the owners has not gone out of the article, because the film can still be projected to paying audiences. ⁃ The court allowed the appeal of the defendant against his conviction for conspiracy to steal. • Particular property: it is no defence that similar property was to be returned This rule is most often applied to coins and bank notes.

Velumyl (1989) Crim LR 299

In this case, D took money from a safe, with the intention to pay it back after the weekend. ⁃ The court held that there was no intention to return the exact same coins and notes, therefore he was convicted. ⁃ So the value was immaterial. • Conditional intention = valid intention Your flat mate takes your earrings, but she only wants to keep them if the stones are genuine, if not then she intends to return them. ⁃ So the question is, could she be liable of theft even though she only had a conditional intention??

Easom (1971) 2 QB 315 AG’s References (Nos. 1 and 2 of 1979) (1980) QB 180...