Introduction
The concept of theft under English criminal law involves taking property owned by someone else with the aim to keep it permanently. This rule, from the Theft Act 1968, distinguishes theft from minor acts like short-term use without permission. A key requirement for proving theft is showing the aim to keep the property permanently. The case of R v Lloyd [1985] QB 829 clarifies how courts decide whether an “aim to keep property permanently” exists when the property is returned but altered or used. The Court of Appeal’s decision provides clear rules for determining if the “function, quality, or main value” of the property has been removed, making it theft. This decision requires careful review of the property’s features, its use, and how any changes impacted its worth.
The Facts of R v Lloyd
The defendants in R v Lloyd worked as cinema projectionists. They took film reels from their workplace, copied them without permission, and returned the originals before being discovered. The prosecution argued this was theft, stating the defendants aimed to prevent the cinema owners from benefiting from the films’ exclusive value.
The Court of Appeal's Ruling
The Court of Appeal overturned the theft convictions. Lord Lane CJ, delivering the decision, outlined the test for deciding intent to keep property permanently when it is returned. He stated short-term use of property is not theft unless the use is so severe it equals keeping the property permanently. The main question is whether the defendant removed “all the function, quality, or main value” of the property. In Lloyd, the court ruled returning the original films, though violating copyright laws, did not qualify as theft because the owners still fully controlled the physical reels. The loss in commercial value from copying was insufficient to classify the short-term use as theft.
Understanding "Function, Quality, Main Value"
The Lloyd decision requires detailed assessment of the phrase “function, quality, main value.” This phrase does not only refer to the physical state of the property when returned. It includes all the owner’s legal rights and interests in the property. For example, taking a season ticket and returning it after all events have passed, even if undamaged, eliminates the owner’s chance to use it and would be theft. Taking a valuable painting and returning it after copying it removes major value, which could be theft even if the original remains unchanged.
Section 6(1) of the Theft Act 1968
Section 6(1) of the Theft Act 1968 expands the meaning of intent to keep property permanently. It applies when a person treats property as their own, disregarding the owner’s rights. This part of the law is relevant when borrowed property is sold or pledged, even if the borrower plans to recover it later. Such actions show disrespect for the owner’s rights and typically qualify as theft. R v Lloyd did not focus on Section 6(1) because the films were returned unchanged before being noticed, but this section remains significant in theft cases.
Later Cases and R v Lloyd
The principles from R v Lloyd have been applied and modified in later cases. Rulings like R v Raphael [2008] EWCA Crim 1014 and DPP v Lavender [1994] Crim LR 297 clarify when short-term taking can be theft. These decisions emphasize examining specific facts to decide if the defendant treated the property as their own. The Lloyd test remains practical in such cases, aiding careful application of the law.
Conclusion
The R v Lloyd judgment provides essential guidance for deciding “aim to keep property permanently” in theft cases. The “function, quality, main value” test from Lord Lane CJ requires thorough evaluation of how the defendant’s actions impacted the owner’s rights. Returning property physically unchanged does not always prevent theft if the defendant eliminated its core value or function. Later cases have built on Lloyd’s principles, further shaping the legal interpretation of intent to keep property permanently. The Lloyd decision, alongside Section 6(1) of the Theft Act 1968, offers a straightforward framework for assessing complex cases of property misuse, ensuring the law addresses various forms of theft.
