R v Lloyd [1985]
Share
R v Lloyd [1985] QB 829 dealt with the question of whether borrowing property could amount to the intention to permanently deprive, a key element of theft under Section 1(1) of the Theft Act 1968.
The defendant, who worked as the chief projectionist at a cinema. The defendant took movie tapes for several hours at a time and lent them to two other defendants to be copied and sold. The defendant was convicted of theft under Section 1(1) of the Theft Act 1968.
The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, and the conviction was quashed. The court held that borrowing could only amount to the intention to permanently deprive if the intention was to return the property in a changed state where it had lost its goodness, virtue, or practical value. In this case, the court found that there was no such loss, as films could still be screened after being borrowed.
This decision clarified that the intention to permanently deprive involves more than mere borrowing and requires an intention to return the property in a state where its value or utility has been significantly diminished.
The defendant, who worked as the chief projectionist at a cinema. The defendant took movie tapes for several hours at a time and lent them to two other defendants to be copied and sold. The defendant was convicted of theft under Section 1(1) of the Theft Act 1968.
The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, and the conviction was quashed. The court held that borrowing could only amount to the intention to permanently deprive if the intention was to return the property in a changed state where it had lost its goodness, virtue, or practical value. In this case, the court found that there was no such loss, as films could still be screened after being borrowed.
This decision clarified that the intention to permanently deprive involves more than mere borrowing and requires an intention to return the property in a state where its value or utility has been significantly diminished.
