criminal-law theft
Would this be considered as Theft under the UK&#39;s jurisdiction?
<p>So say you have a car, and I steal your car, but with the intention to return it back to you after 2 years. It means I do not wish to "permanently deprive" you of your car. I will treat the car with care, so that when I return it back to you, it will remind as intact as possible. Therefore, the "goodness or virtue" of the car remains. </p>

<p>Intention permanently to deprive is one of the two main requirements of mens rea for theft. </p>

<p>I know in practice the verdict is not always predictable, as judges sometimes distort the clear wording of the act to achieve justice. But according to clear wording of the act, the defendent in the scenario doesn't have the sufficient mens rea right? So would this still be regarded as theft? Even tho common sense tells you it does?</p>

<p>Theoretically speaking, this is not theft. You are correct in that theft requires specific intent: to permanently deprive someone from the use and enjoyment of one of their lawful possessions.</p>

<p>In real life, it is a matter of evidence of course. Saying you were only borrowing can be proven otherwise based on your actions.</p>

<p>I should also mention that if you "borrow" something an there were obligations attached to that borroeing (e.g. "you can borrow it but you mustnt use it like this, or you must return it in a week") then failing to abide by those obligations can be sufficient to show intention to deprive.</p>

<p>Furthermore "borrowing something" and consuming its entire usefulness for yourself counts as the permanent deprivation of the use of the possession from the owner. E.g. "borrowing" concert tickets and returning them after a concert (see s.6 Theft Act 1968)</p>

<p>R v Lloyd, Bhuee &amp; Ali [1985] QB 829 also tells us that the condition of something borrowed once returned may be indicative of whether there was an intention to permanently deprive someone of their rights to property.</p>
