2.2.1 Theft – s.6 Intention to Permanently Deprive

Statutory Provision

• s.6(1) Theft Act 1968:
  • “A person appropriating property belonging to another without meaning the other permanently to lose the thing itself is nevertheless to be regarded as having the intention of permanently depriving the other of it if his intention is to treat the thing as his own to dispose of regardless of the other’s rights; and a borrowing or lending of it may amount to so treating it if, but only if, the borrowing or lending is for a period and in circumstances making it equivalent to an outright taking or disposal.”
• s.6(2):
  • Where a person parts with property under a condition as to its return which he may not be able to perform, this amounts to intention to permanently deprive.

Key Principles

• ITPD is the mens rea element of theft, alongside dishonesty.
• Does not only mean literal permanent loss — statute extends it to situations where D treats property as their own to dispose of.
• Borrowing can amount to ITPD if equivalent to outright taking.

Written and Compiled By Sir Hunain Zia, World Record Holder With 154 Total A Grades, 7 Distinctions and 11 World Records For Educate A Change AS Level Law Full Scale Course

1. Literal Intention to Permanently Deprive

• Straightforward situation: D intends to keep property permanently.
• Examples: Stealing jewellery to sell, taking money with no intention to return.
• Easy for prosecution to prove when evidence of disposal or permanent retention exists.

2. Treating Property as Own to Dispose Of

• Broader interpretation of ITPD under s.6(1).
• R v Velumyl [1989] Crim LR 299
  • D took money from employer’s safe intending to return equivalent later.
  • CA: Still ITPD because he intended to permanently deprive employer of those exact notes/coins.
• R v Lavender [1994] Crim LR 297
  • D took council doors from one property to use in another.
  • Conviction upheld: treating property as his own to dispose of, even though property still existed.
• Principle: Even without permanent loss, treating property as one’s own (use, transfer, disposal) amounts to ITPD.

Written and Compiled By Sir Hunain Zia, World Record Holder With 154 Total A Grades, 7 Distinctions and 11 World Records For Educate A Change AS Level Law Full Scale Course

3. Borrowing and Lending Equivalent to Outright Taking

• Borrowing can amount to theft if equivalent to outright taking.
• Case: R v Lloyd [1985] QB 829
  • D borrowed cinema film reels to copy, then returned before next showing.
  • CA: No theft — film returned intact, value not diminished. Borrowing only amounts to ITPD if property returned in state making it valueless.
• Case: R v Warner [1970] 1 WLR 1003
  • D took toolbox, intending to return, but owner deprived of it temporarily. Court divided: majority held no ITPD as property returned intact.
• Case: R v DPP v J (2002)
  • D took headphones, snapped them, then returned broken. Held: ITPD as property returned worthless.
• Principle: Borrowing = ITPD if for long period or in circumstances where property loses value or utility.

4. Conditional Intent (s.6(2))

• Where D intends to return property only if certain conditions met, or under uncertainty of returning the exact item.
• Case: R v Easom [1971] 2 QB 315
  • D picked up handbag, rummaged, found nothing worth taking, returned it. Conviction for theft quashed; no ITPD as no intent to permanently deprive.
• Case: Attorney-General’s Reference (Nos. 1 & 2 of 1979) [1980] QB 180
  • Conditional intent sufficient for attempt (e.g., intending to steal “if anything valuable inside”), but not necessarily theft unless appropriation occurs.
• Case: R v Fernandes [1996] 1 Cr App R 175
  • Solicitor risked client’s money in investments without authority. Conviction upheld: treating property as his own to dispose of regardless of owner’s rights = ITPD.

Written and Compiled By Sir Hunain Zia, World Record Holder With 154 Total A Grades, 7 Distinctions and 11 World Records For Educate A Change AS Level Law Full Scale Course

5. Practical Illustrations

• Borrowing neighbour’s bike overnight but returning intact = no ITPD.
• Borrowing neighbour’s bike, damaging it, or keeping it until useless = ITPD (Lloyd, J).
• Taking cash with intent to replace later = ITPD (Velumyl).
• Using property for own benefit without authority (even if eventually returned) may = ITPD (Fernandes).

Evaluation

• Strengths:
  • Broad definition prevents loopholes where D “borrows” but really exploits property.
  • Protects value and utility of property, not just physical existence.
• Weaknesses:
  • Line between temporary borrowing and ITPD often unclear (Lloyd vs Warner).
  • Velumyl criticised for formalism — replacing money arguably causes no real loss.
  • Jury discretion on what counts as “equivalent to outright taking” may lead to uncertainty.
• Policy Concerns:
  • Courts interpret broadly to protect owners.
  • But risks criminalising behaviour not intuitively dishonest (borrowing with intent to return).

Reform Proposals

• Law Commission: Suggested clearer statutory wording to define when borrowing counts as ITPD.
• Possible reform: Focus on whether owner deprived of practical value or benefit of property, not just physical return.
• Calls for alignment with modern property issues (e.g., digital data, intangible assets).

Written and Compiled By Sir Hunain Zia, World Record Holder With 154 Total A Grades, 7 Distinctions and 11 World Records For Educate A Change AS Level Law Full Scale Course

Exam Application Strategy

1. Start with s.6 definition — treating as own to dispose of, or borrowing equivalent to outright taking.
2. Apply key cases:
   • Velumyl – money must be identical notes/coins.
   • Lloyd – borrowing not theft unless value destroyed.
   • Lavender – disposing of doors = ITPD.
   • Fernandes – risk of property in unauthorised use.
   • Easom – conditional intent insufficient unless appropriation + dishonesty present.
3. Analyse facts: Did D intend to keep permanently, or treat property as own to dispose of?
4. Conclude with fairness of outcome.

Conclusion

• Intention to permanently deprive (s.6) is broad — covers literal keeping, treating as own, borrowing equivalent to permanent taking, and conditional cases.
• Case law ensures owners’ rights protected widely, though criticisms about overbreadth remain (Velumyl, Fernandes).
• Law balances fairness with effectiveness, but reform proposals argue for more clarity in distinguishing borrowing from outright theft.