The fact that the defendant intended to return the property or the monies that he had taken is not a defense. The fact that it was wrongfully taken in the first place contrary to section 1 (1) of the Theft Act 1968 was sufficient to convict the defendant.
In R v Velumyl (1989) the appellant was a company director who took money out of the company safe. He was convicted for theft and he appealed on the grounds that he intended to return the money.
The conviction was upheld. It was sufficient that the appellant wrongfully took the money out of the company safe. The fact that he intended to return the money could not be used as a defense to stay a conviction for theft.
Copyright © 2018 by Dyarne Jessica Ward