Criminal Unit 6 SBAQs Flashcards
Is the following statement true or false? Before a conviction for robbery can be established, it must first be proved that a defendant appropriated property belonging to another dishonestly and with an intention to permanently deprive.
TRUE
An essential element of the offence of robbery is theft - without a theft, there can be no robbery.
Is it true or false that in order to be guilty of robbery, a defendant must use force either before, during or after the theft.
FALSE
The force used by the defendant in a robbery must be used immediately before or at the time of the theft under s.8(1) Theft Act 1968. Any force used once the theft is complete will not give rise to a charge of robbery, although it could lead to the defendant being charged with an offence of assault.
This issue was considered by the case of R v Hale (1978) where the Court of Appeal held that the issue to be determined was whether the appropriation was still continuing at the time the force was used. If the appropriation was a continuing one at that point, the force had been used at the time of the theft and the defendants could be guilty of robbery.
In which one of the situations below is Emilia not guilty of the offence of robbery?
A. Emilia deliberately bumps into Luca and in doing so, takes his wallet from his pocket.
B. Emilia sees Luca’s wallet at the top of his shopping bag. She grabs the bag and takes the wallet before running off.
C. Emilia sees Luca talking into a mobile phone. Believing it to belong to her, she deliberately knocks him over in order to take the phone.
D. Emilia threatens to punch Luca’s girlfriend Gavrila, if Luca does not hand over his wallet. He does so.
C is correct
the correct option is C, as Emilia believes the phone belongs to her and hence, there is no theft. This is a requirement for a robbery conviction. The circumstances set out in options A, B and D could all lead to a conviction for robbery. In option A, Emilia deliberately used force in order to steal and it matters not that the force used was minimal. In R v Clouden [1987] it was confirmed that force could be directed against property rather than against the person, so she could also be liable for robbery in option B. Under s.8(1) Theft Act 1968 force can be directed against ‘any person’ so the definition of robbery is also satisfied in option D.
In which of the following situations can Bert be said to have entered a building for the purposes of a burglary offence?
A. Bert puts his arm through the window of the downstairs bathroom, but then gets his arm stuck.
B. Bert reaches into a house through the open kitchen window.
C. Bert walks into Donna’s offices without permission.
D. All of the above.
D is correct
Option D is correct as Bert has entered a building for the purposes of burglary in each of the scenarios set out in options A, B and C. You may have considered that option A was wrong on the basis that the defendant could not at that point commit an ulterior offence as required for burglary; however, in R v Ryan [1996] the Court of Appeal held there was evidence of an effective entry into the building in this situation. Although it was a question of fact for the jury to decide, the inability of the defendant to commit an ulterior offence at that stage was not relevant.
The facts in option B are similar to those of R v Brown [1985]. Again the Court of Appeal confirmed that there must be an ‘effective entry’ (which there is here) and this was for the jury to decide. In option C there is clear evidence on the facts that Bert has entered the property.
In relation to the trespass element for an offence of burglary, which of the following statements is correct?
A. To establish the trespass element for burglary, the defendant must enter a building without permission.
B. To establish the trespass element for burglary, the defendant must enter a building without permission and must know that they are entering without permission.
C. To establish the trespass element of burglary, the defendant must enter a building without permission and must either know they have no permission or be reckless as to whether they have permission to enter.
C is correct
Although the first two statements go some way to recording the elements of trespass, only option C sets out the full requirements. Option A is incomplete because it only deals with the actus reus element of trespass - remember that there is also a mens rea element. Option B is not quite accurate. Although knowledge that they are a trespasser will suffice, it is not the only way of establishing the mens rea of trespass as they may also be reckless as to this fact.
Which one or more of the following elements are common to burglary with intent under s.9(1)(a) and burglary under s.9(1)(b) Theft Act 1968? To obtain credit for this question, you must identify all correct statements.
A. Entry as a trespasser into a building or part of a building.
B. The actus reus of theft (appropriation of property belonging to another).
C. Knowledge or recklessness as to entry as a trespasser.
D. Intent to steal from the building or part of the building.
A and C are correct
The common elements of both s.9(1)(a) and s.9(1)(b) Theft Act 1968 burglary are those set out in options A and C above. Option B is relevant only to burglary under s.9(1)(b) and option D only applies to burglary with intent under s.9(1)(a).
Abebe has an argument with Masayo, a shop owner. He walks into Masayo’s shop and hides in a storeroom, intending to come out of the storeroom after closing time to attack Masayo in her shop. Is it true or false that Abebe has committed burglary with intent under s.9(1)(a) Theft Act 1968 when he entered the storeroom?
FALSE
For Abebe to have committed burglary with intent when he entered the storeroom, he must have intended to cause grievous bodily harm in the storeroom itself (entry into part of a building as a trespasser with intent to commit GBH therein). Here, Abebe intended to come out of the storeroom and into the shop before attacking Masayo.
Which of the following statements correctly describes the law in relation to aggravated burglary?
A. The defendant must have a weapon with them at the time of committing the burglary.
B. The defendant is only liable for this offence if they commit burglary when armed with a firearm.
C. A weapon of offence is defined so it only includes items adapted for use for causing injury.
D. The defendant is liable even if they are not aware they have the item with them.
A is correct
The defendant must have a weapon with them at the time of entry for burglary with intent under s.9(1)(a) or when the ulterior offence is committed for burglary under s.9(1)(b). Option B is wrong due to the presence of the word ‘only’ as other weapons will suffice. Option C is wrong because the definition is wider than this and includes any article made or adapted for use in causing injury to or incapacitating a person, or intended for such use. Option D is also wrong as the defendant must know they have the item on them
The defendant is in a night club when she sees a man’s mobile phone sticking out of his trouser pocket. She manages to grip the phone with her fingers and slide it out of his pocket, before walking away.
The defendant then sees a woman carrying a bag which she believes belongs to her. She threatens to punch her, if the woman does not hand over the bag.
The defendant decides to go home and takes a coat that has been left on the seat which belongs to her friend. She walks away but slaps the friend’s partner as she leaves because she dislikes her.
On the way out, the defendant threatens the waiter that if he does not hand over his watch, she will punch him; the waiter complies immediately.
As she walks away, the defendant notices that the waiter has dropped his bank card on the floor, so she picks it up and leaves the night club.
In each scenario, the defendant has, or may have, committed theft, but in which one of the situations described has the defendant also committed a robbery?
A. The theft of the man’s mobile phone.
B. The theft of the woman’s bag.
C. The theft of the friend’s coat.
D. The theft of the watch.
E. The theft of the bank card.
D is correct as the defendant steals the waiter’s watch and does so by threatening force immediately before the theft.
The defendant is not guilty of robbery in option A because force must be used in order to steal even if it is minimal. In this instance, it is not apparent that any force was used at all – R v Dawson [1976]. In option B, the woman is not dishonest as she thought the bag belonged to her and so may believe she had a right to the property under s.2(1)(a) Theft Act 1968. Without a theft, there can be no robbery, although the woman would be guilty of an assault.
With regard to the theft of the friend’s coat (option C), the force used can be directed against ‘any person’ so it does not matter that the woman slaps the partner rather than the friend. However, because the force inflicted on the partner was because she dislikes her and not in order to steal, the definition of robbery is not satisfied in option C either.
Option E is wrong because the decision to take the waiter’s bank card was after she had threatened violence against him; thus, not in order to steal.
A man decides to break into a house to steal the television and anything else he notices, if it is of value and can easily be sold.
The man gains entry by smashing the lock on the front door. Once inside, after picking up the television, the man is disturbed by the owner. The man has a gun with him. He pushes the gun into the owner’s face, causing a small bruise, and warns him “not to be a hero”. The man then makes his escape.
Which of the following best describes the man’s criminal liability?
A. He commits burglary with intent in relation to the television and his aim of stealing anything of value; burglary in relation to the television; and aggravated burglary as he has a gun with him.
B. He commits burglary with intent in relation to the television and his aim of stealing anything of value; burglary in relation to the television and when he pushes the gun in the owner’s face; and aggravated burglary as he has a gun with him.
C. He commits burglary with intent in relation to the television and his aim of stealing anything of value; and burglary in relation to the television and when he pushes the gun in the owner’s face.
D. He commits burglary with intent in relation to the television; burglary in relation to the television; and aggravated burglary as he has a gun with him.
E. He commits burglary with intent in relation to his aim of stealing anything of value; and burglary in relation to the television and when he pushes the gun in the owner’s face.
A is correct
All the other choices either include an offence that is wrong or omit one which is correct.
The man is guilty of burglary with intent under s.9(1)(a) Theft Act 1968 in relation to the television because he enters as a trespasser with the intent to steal. He is also guilty of the same offence with regards to his aim of stealing anything of value, as a conditional intent to steal will suffice – Attorney General’s Reference (Nos. 1 and 2 of 1979) [1980].
He commits s.9(1)(b) burglary when he picks up the television. However, he is is not criminally liable for burglary when he pushes the gun into the owner’s face. This is because he has not committed the actus reus of grievous bodily harm as the owner only suffered a small bruise.
He is guilty of aggravated burglary under s.10, as he has a weapon of offence (a gun) with him at the time he commits the burglary.
A man approaches a woman in the street and threatens to “break her nose” if she does not hand over her expensive watch. The woman is a national kickboxing champion and is not afraid of the man. When she refuses, the man grabs the woman’s wrist and forcibly removes the watch before running way.
Which option best describes the offences for which the man could be criminally liable?
A. Theft and simple assault
B. Theft and robbery
C. Robbery and simple assault
D. Theft, robbery and battery
E. Theft, robbery, simple assault and battery
E is correct
The correct option is E as the man is guilty of theft, robbery, simple assault and battery. In all the other options, one or other of the offences was missing.
The man is guilty of theft as he ‘removes’ the woman’s watch before running away; thus, he appropriates property belonging to another dishonestly and with intention to permanently deprive under s.1 Theft Act 1968. In addition to the theft, the man also commits robbery under s.8 as he threatens force (to “break her nose”) immediately before the theft in order to steal.
The man is guilty of simple assault as he causes the woman to apprehend unlawful force and does this intentionally. It is irrelevant that the woman is not afraid because this is not a requirement of the offence. The man commits battery when he ‘grabs’ her wrist and thus intentionally applies unlawful force.
A man decides to steal an expensive car which is parked on the drive of a large house. He walks down the drive to steal it. However, as he approaches the vehicle, he is horrified to discover that the woman and her daughter are about to get into the car to go shopping.
The man points a knife at the woman and says he will stab her unless she gives him the keys. When she refuses, he tells the woman he will stab her daughter, who is standing nearby, if she does not hand over the keys. The woman is in shock and does not comply so he punches the daughter to persuade the woman to release the keys. When she still refuses, he grabs the woman and snatches the keys from her hands.
An hour later, the man returns to the house and threatens to kill the woman if she gives evidence against him.
In which of the following scenarios will the man escape liability for robbery?
A. When he threatens to stab the woman.
B. When he threatens to stab the woman’s daughter.
C. When he punches the woman’s daughter.
D. When he snatches the keys from the woman’s hands.
E. When he threatens to kill the woman.
E is correct
For the offence of robbery, the defendant must commit the actus reus and mens rea of theft and use or threaten force against the victim or another immediately before or at the time of the theft in order to steal. This applies in options A, B, C and D.
However, in option E, the man threatens to kill the woman an hour later and this does not satisfy the requirement for the force to be immediately before or after the theft.
A man was walking down his local high street late at night. All the shops were closed. He cut through a passageway next to a shop and noticed that a window was slightly open. He looked around to see that nobody was watching and proceeded to lift himself up and start to climb through the window. The man was equipped with a screwdriver and intended to steal anything worth stealing. As he was climbing in, the upper part of his body got stuck between the top and bottom of the window with his waist and legs suspended outside. He screamed for help and was eventually spotted by a person passing who was suspicious of where the man was and so called the police.
Has the man has committed an offence of burglary?
A. No, because he has not gained sufficient entry to the building.
B. No, because although he has gained sufficient entry to the building, he has not been able to steal anything.
C. No, because he did not enter the building as a trespasser.
D. Yes, because his partial entry to the building was effective even though he has not been able to steal anything.
E. Yes, because he had properly planned the entry to the building and was sufficiently equipped to carry out the burglary.
D is correct
The facts are similar to the case of R v Ryan [1996] in which the defendant was found firmly stuck with his head and arm through a window attempting to commit a burglary. He argued on appeal that he was incapable of stealing anything as he was stuck. The Court of Appeal rejected this argument, finding that entry of some part of the defendant’s body into the premises could amount to an effective entry and the fact that at that point he was incapable of committing any crime was irrelevant.
This makes options A to C wrong and option E is wrong because being sufficiently equipped is irrelevant to the offence.
A woman smashes a kitchen window at her neighbour’s house. She climbs in through the window onto the kitchen worktop. Before she can get down to the floor, the neighbour appears in the kitchen and runs towards her. The woman kicks out, hitting the neighbour who falls, fracturing his skull. The woman is shocked to see that the neighbour is badly injured and she later tells the police that she knew she should not have gone into the house. She says she was desperate for money and knew the neighbour had a valuable collection of jewellery that the woman had planned to take and sell.
Is the woman liable for an offence of burglary?
A. Yes, because she knows she is trespassing, she has effectively entered the neighbour’s house as a trespasser and she intended to cause criminal damage by smashing the window to gain entry.
B. Yes, because the judge will find, on the facts, that there has been an effective entry into a building as a trespasser and she intended to steal.
C. Yes, because she has entered the house as a trespasser, she knows she is a trespasser and she intended to steal.
D. No, because although she has entered the house as a trespasser and caused serious harm to the neighbour she did not intend to cause such serious harm.
E. No, because although she has made an effective entry into the building as a trespasser, knowing she should not be there, she has not stolen anything.
C is correct
Option C is the best answer because it identifies the actus reus and mens rea elements of burglary (under s.9(1)(a) Theft Act 1968: entry into a building as a trespasser, knowing (or being reckless) that she was trespassing and intending to steal.
Option A is not the best answer as, although she has entered the building as a trespasser, knowing she is trespassing, she does not have the ulterior mens rea for burglary with intent under s.9(1)(a) Theft Act 1968 as she enters with an intention to cause criminal damage once in the property. Intending to damage to gain entry is not within the definition of burglary.
Option B is not the best answer as the issue of an effective entry is a question of fact for the jury (not the judge). In addition, the prosecution would have to prove the mens rea of trespass as well as the ulterior mens rea of intent to steal (s.9(1)(a)).
Option D is not the best answer because, although it identifies the actus reus of entry into a building as a trespasser, it does not deal with the mens rea element of knowing or being reckless as to trespass. In addition, under s.9(1)(b), where grievous bodily harm has been caused, there is no need to prove an intention to do so – intention or recklessness as to some harm will suffice.
Option E is not the best answer because, if she entered a building as a trespasser, knowing (or being reckless) as to trespass, the fact that she did not steal anything would not avoid liability (under s.9(1)(a)) as her statement to the police shows she intended to steal and that suffices (for s.9(1)(a)).
The defendant runs a hair salon. A woman sets up in competition with him only a few doors away and the defendant begins to lose customers. Worried that he will go out of business, the defendant decides that he will spray paint the words ‘Thief’ across the inside walls to damage the woman’s reputation in the local area.
That evening the defendant breaks into the woman’s salon when it is closed. He takes a knife with him in case the woman returns and disturbs him. Because the spray paint can does not work, he slashes the chairs with the knife instead. He then notices an expensive hair dryer which he decides to keep. As he is about to leave, the defendant hears a key in the lock and is horrified to see the woman returning to her salon. To ensure that he keeps the hair dryer, the defendant launches at her with the knife intending to stab her but fortunately the woman manages to escape. The defendant flees the salon.
The defendant is charged with a number of offences. What is the only offence he should be acquitted of?
A. Burglary with intent in relation to the intention to spray paint the word ‘Thief’.
B. Burglary in relation to the damaged chairs.
C. Burglary when he takes the hair dryer.
D. Burglary when he launches at the woman with a knife.
E. Aggravated burglary.
B is correct
option B is the only offence for which the defendant is not liable and, thus, should be acquitted. He is not guilty of burglary contrary to s.9(1)(b) as although he enters the salon (the building) as a trespasser, the definition does not cover the commission of criminal damage (although he would be liable for the substantive offence).
The defendant is liable for the offence of burglary with intent in option A. The actus reus of s.9(1)(a) burglary is satisfied as the defendant enters the building as a trespasser. He satisfies the relevant mens rea as he intends to enter as a trespasser because he does so when it is closed; and he has the ulterior mens rea of intent to commit criminal damage on entry which is sufficient for the s.9(1)(a) offence.
The defendant is liable for the burglary offence under s.9(1)(b) in option C because, having entered as a trespasser, he steals (appropriates property belonging to another dishonestly and with the intention to permanently deprive) the hair dryer. He is also guilty of this offence in option D as he attempts grievous bodily harm by launching at the woman with a knife.
The defendant is criminally liable for aggravated burglary in option E because the defendant has a weapon of offence (a knife) with him at the time he commits the burglary.
