“Court defines when temporary taking becomes theft under criminal law”
Lloyd, a cinema projectionist, borrowed films from his workplace to make pirate copies before returning the originals. He argued this was merely borrowing since he always intended to return the films to the cinema.
Whether temporary deprivation of property with intent to return it can constitute theft under section 6 of the Theft Act 1968, specifically the meaning of 'intention of permanently depriving the other of it'.
The Court of Appeal held that borrowing can amount to theft where the defendant intends to treat the property as his own to dispose of regardless of the other's rights, even if he intends to return it.
This case provides the leading interpretation of section 6 of the Theft Act 1968 and establishes when temporary taking can constitute theft. It remains the key authority for determining the boundaries between borrowing and stealing.
You're reading the free summary of R v Lloyd. Create a free account to unlock the full reasoning, the cited authorities and the verbatim judgment — plus structured briefs for 412,000+ UK judgments.
No card required. Free forever.
OSCOLA Citation
R v Lloyd [1985] QB 829 (CA)
Multiple official and mirror sources — pick whichever loads cleanly on your network.
Falls back to Google for old citations BAILII catalogues separately
Common Room
0 comments · About the Common Room →
No comments yet — start the discussion.
Voted-best comments help future students and feed Caselaw's AI study tools.