Theft: intention permanently to deprive

Overview

Final element of the mens rea of theft and conditional intention.

What you need to know

Answer each one before you reveal it.

Questions from this subtopic

Each one with the model answer underneath.

1. 1

   What is the final element of the mens rea of theft?

   Model answer

   The defendant must intend permanently to deprive the other of the property. A borrowing with an intention to return is not theft.

2. 2

   How does section 6(1) extend the meaning of intention permanently to deprive?

   Model answer

   Section 6(1) covers a defendant who treats the property as his own to dispose of regardless of the other's rights. Intending to deprive the owner permanently is not always required in fact.

3. 3

   How does section 6(1) treat borrowing?

   Model answer

   A borrowing counts as an intention permanently to deprive where it is equivalent to an outright taking. The property must lose all its practical value to the owner.

4. 4

   Which case shows that returning different banknotes is theft?

   Model answer

   R v Velumyl [1989] upheld a conviction where the defendant took money from an office safe intending to repay it. Returning different notes was not returning the same property.

5. 5

   Which case held that borrowing films and returning them was not theft?

   Model answer

   R v Lloyd [1985] quashed a conviction where a projectionist lent out films for copying and returned them. The films retained all their goodness, virtue and practical value.

6. 6

   How was the phrase to dispose of interpreted in DPP v Lavender [1994]?

   Model answer

   DPP v Lavender [1994] read to dispose of as meaning to deal with. Moving council doors from one property to another was treating them as the defendant's own.

Other ways to work this

The same content, four other ways.

What is inside Levo

Six ways to work the same material.