--- סוף עמוד 132 ---
which he knows he may not be able to perform" (SMITH AND HOGAN'S, 837).
ובמקום אחר, ציינו המלומדים Child ו-Ormerod כי:
"This subsection makes clear that where D intends to part with the property and cannot be sure of its return, her intention amounts to an intention to permanently deprive… even if she hopes to be successful and give the property back"(JOHN CHILD & DAVID ORMEROD, SMITH AND HOGAN'S ESSENTIALS OF CRIMINAL LAW 347 (Oxford University Press, 2015)).
319. על-פי הגישה השניה, במקרה של שליחת יד כוונתו של הנאשם לשלילת קבע של הדבר הנגנב היא מחויבת המציאות מקום שבו הדבר יצא מידיו והוא איננו בעל "זכות אוטומטית" להשבתו. כך, על-פי גישה זו, עצם חשיפת רכושו של הזולת לסיכון מסוים – ואין נפקה מינה מהו היקפו או הסתברות התממשותו של הסיכון – היא הבסיס להטלת האחריות על הנאשם:
"It seems however that the sub-section operates as a form of strict liability. Once a person parts with the possession of property in circumstances where there is no automatic right to regain possession, he or she is deemed to have had an intention to permanently deprive" (Steel, Permanent Borrowing and lending, 22).
ובהמשך, כתגובה לגישה המקלה הנזכרת לעיל, מציין Steel כי:
"It is suggested that such belief is the very argument made by the hopeful pledger that the section designed to overcome. Even though the pledger may believe that he or she is able to perform the condition, there remains a chance that he or she may not be able to do so. The mere fact that he or she has exposed the owner's property to this risk is the basis for the liability. Section 6(2), thus, deems any dealing with property where a person loses complete control over it without authority to do so from the owner to be an act that is so intentionally or recklessly in disregard of the owner's right that it should be automatically seen as an intent to deprive… There is no scope for a finder of fact to assess the length or risk of the pawning activity. All instances are deemed to evidence an intention to permanently deprive" (Ibid, 22-23).