Intention to permanently deprive Flashcards
What effect does S 1(2) have?
the TA explicitly clarifies that theft need not be for the D’s benefit, so this element includes an intention to give V’s property to another. However, V must be deprived of her property, and, D must intend that deprivation to be permanent.
What is the requirement of ITPD
ulterior mens rea element and there is no corresponding actus reus element: whether D permanently deprives V in fact is irrelevant.
Is borrowing included?
In the primary (natural) sense excludes borrowing, even if dishonest, if it is intended only to be temporary: Warner (1970) 55 Cr App R 93. Some temporary dealings may fall under substituted intent.
Facts of Warner
D took V’s tool box and charged with theft but claimed intended only to inconvenience the V and would have given the tools back in an hour. CA said entitled to direction that if that was true, it was not a theft. True even if what he does is dishonest, the elements are separate.
Can intent formed after appropriation be sufficent
Primary or substituted intent formed after D has taken property without stealing it may be enough if D does further acts of appropriation –eg D borrows property from V, then decides to destroy it) throws it away with intent permanently to deprive V
Can intent be conditional?
Intent may be conditional (eg I will keep V’s watch if it is valuable) A-G’s Refs 1&2 set out in s 6(1) TA
What does dispose of for the purpose of S 6(1) mean?
involves treating property as though he had the right to alienate, not merely to use:
Facts of Mitchell
D pushes a woman from her husband’s car and used it to make his getaway from police. He left it so the V was always going to get the car back, so this could only be substituted intent, if treating the car as his own to dispose of regardless of the owner’s right. The circumstances of the intended abandonment made it likely that the car would be returned to V and this did not indicate an intention to permanently deprive. The question in each case will focus on the manner by which D intended to abandon the property at the moment of appropriation.
Facts of Scott
D held to have treatd as own to dispose of. Took curtains, pretending paid for them took them back for a refund. Clear evidence that intends V to get the thing back, but only by selling back to the V, treating it as the D’s own to deal with, was sufficient.
When will borrowing or lending with sufficent
In circumstances equivalent to an outright taking or disposal. If D’s intention is to take property and return it to V with all of its value removed, then there is an intention to permanently deprive.
Cinema projectionist case
Lloyd: cinema projectionist borrowed a film, and made a copy and put it back. CA said this was not theft, borrowing or lending requires a situation where the thing that is being returned is returned in such a changed state that it can be said that all its goodness or virtue has gone.
“…That being the case, we turn to inquire whether the feature films in this case can fall within that category. Our view is that they cannot. The goodness, the virtue, the practical value of the films to the owners has not gone out of the article. The film could still be projected to paying audiences.” Per Lord Lane CJ.
What If D has taken a sporting ticket?
D intends to return the sporting season ticket halfway through the season, the question for the court will be one of degree: did D’s intended conduct amount to an intention to remove sufficient value to be equivalent to outright taking.
What does S 6(2) deal with
parting with property under condition therefore makes clear that where D intents to part with V’s property and cannot be sure of its return, her intention amounts to an intention to permanently deprive e.g. pawning cases.
May not includes the risk of what
risk of loss of the property e.g. Fernandes: D risked V’s money by gambling with it
