Problems in the law on robbery and burglary

Question 1

Robbery requires a theft to be completed. However the courts have applied the law on theft differently in robbery to the way it is applied in theft cases. However, in robbery, which 2 cases have been prepared to view appropriation as a continuing act?

Answer 1

Hale and Lockley

Question 2

What happened in the case of Lockley?

Answer 2

the defendant used force to escape after he had stolen. Despite the fact the appropriation for the theft occurred before the force, the COA still held that the defendant was guilty of robbery.

Question 3

the defendant used force to escape after he had stolen. Despite the fact the appropriation for the theft occurred before the force, the COA still held that the defendant was guilty of robbery.
What case is this?

Answer 3

Lockley

Question 4

The Theft has to be completed otherwise there is no robbery. It can be argued that a completed theft should not be necessary. Why is this?

Answer 4

as this would bring the law into line with burglary

Question 5

Why should the offence of robbery allow attempts?

Answer 5

as it is thought just to allow D to be convicted for burglary where he intends or attempts

Question 6

How could the law of robbery be brought into line with burglary?

Answer 6

as the law would need to be altered to include that a person would be guilty of robbery if he used force intending to steal or if he attempted to steal using force for that purpose

Question 7

How high is the level of force required for robbery?

Answer 7

very low

Question 8

In what case did the COA hold that ‘force’ was an ordinary word and it was for the jury to decide if there had been force?

Answer 8

Dawson and James

Question 9

What did the case of Dawson and James hold?

Answer 9

that ‘force’ was an ordinary word and it was for the jury to decide if there had been force

Question 10

Where does the problems occur with the level of force used in robbery?

Answer 10

problems arise where the force is minimal, and different juries may come to different decisions as to whether or not there had been force

Question 11

Some of the decisions of force seem to contradict the intention of what?

Answer 11

the Criminal Law Revision Committee when they proposed law

Question 12

What proposed the law of force?

Answer 12

the Criminal Law Revision Committee

Question 13

What did the Criminal Law Revision Committee say in their report?

Answer 13

that they would not regard ‘mere snatching of property, such as a handbag, from an unresisting own as using force for the purpose of using force in the definition of robbery

Question 14

Despite the fact the Criminal Law Revision Committee said that they would not regard ‘mere snatching of property, such as a handbag, from an unresisting own as using force for the purpose of using force in the definition of robbery, what case upheld the defendants conviction for snatching a handbag from the victim?

Answer 14

Clouden

Question 15

Why was the defendant in Clouden convicted of robbery?

Answer 15

for snatching a handbag from the victim

Question 16

How can the law be seen to place the protection of property above the protection of people?

Answer 16

as under s.9(1)(a) the defendant need only intend some damage to be guilty whereas the prosecution must prove an intention to inflict GBH on a person to be guilty

Question 17

How is there an anomaly between s.9(1)(a) and (b)?

Answer 17

as under s.9(1)(a) a defendant who enters a building as a trespasser with the intention of causing damage is guilty of burglary while under (b) a defendant who enters a building as a trespasser with no particular intention and then damages property has not committed burglary

Question 18

There seems no reason why damage should not be included as one of the tiger offences for s.9(1)(b). Why is this/What is the point in (b)?

Answer 18

the point of (b) is to catch the opportunist burglar, those who decide to commit GBH or steal after entering. Therefore it would only be logical to include criminal damage as a trigger offence

Question 19

Which subsection s.9 is the easiest to prove?

Answer 19

(1)(b)

Question 20

Why is s.9(1)(b) easier to prove?

Answer 20

as unlike section(a) there is no need to prove Ds intention, and proving a fact is easier than intention

Question 21

Why can it be argued that convicting a defendant on the completed offence of burglary for a conditional intent is unjust?

Answer 21

because conditional intention does not permit a conviction for the full offence in other situations such as robbery

Question 22

What 4 things does the theft Act 1968 not define?

Answer 22

‘entry’ ‘trespasser’ ‘part of a building’ ‘Building’

Question 23

What does it mean for the courts that the Theft Act 1968 does not define key words such as ‘entry’ ‘trespasser’ ‘part of a building’ ‘Building’?

Answer 23

this means that the courts have had to decide what the Act was meant to cover which has led to judicial law making and has created inconsistent decision especially on what is meant by ‘entry’

Question 24

The law on entry has changed through which 3 cases?

Answer 24

Collins, Brown and Ryan

Question 25

What did the COA state in Collins regarding entry?

Answer 25

that there had to be an ‘effective and substantial entry’

Question 26

While the COA in Collins stated that there had to be an ‘effective and substantial entry’, what did the courts state in Brown?

Answer 26

The COA discarded the substantial element of entry and ruled that Brown was guilty of burglary as his entry was effective

Question 27

While the COA in Collins stated that there had to be an ‘effective and substantial entry’, and the COA in Brown discarded the substantial element of entry and ruled that Brown was guilty of burglary as his entry was effective, what did the case of Ryan hold?

Answer 27

that his conviction was upheld on the basis that there was evidence on which the jury could find that the defendant had entered the house

Question 28

How could the inconsistency in the cases of Collins, Brown and Ryan have been avoided?

Answer 28

If the Theft Act had given a definition of entry

Question 29

Generally, the meaning of building has not caused problems in cases. There are only a few instances. Where have the main problems come from?

Answer 29

main problems have come where the place was not originally intended as a building but its use has become that of a building

Question 30

Generally, the meaning of building has not caused problems in cases. There are only a few instances. Main problems have come where the place was not originally intended as a building but its use has become that of a building. Which 2 cases was this considered?

Answer 30

• B and S v Leathley

- Norfolk Constabulary v Seekings and Gould

Question 31

How is the law uncertain following the cases of

• B and S v Leathley
• Norfolk Constabulary v Seekings and Gould?

Answer 31

as it appears that it will depend on the exact facts of the case as to whether the court will take the view that the place is a building or not

Question 32

Why did the Theft Act 1968 include ‘part of a building’?

Answer 32

as it is clear that there are many situatiosn when a defendant can be unlawfully in one part of building, but not in another part

Question 33

Why can the case of Walkington be criticised under ‘part of a building’?

Answer 33

as there were on walls or partitions clearly separating the counter from the rest of the store floor space

Question 34

Why was there a problem in the case of Walkington?

Answer 34

ll D could not be guilty of theft nor attempted theft as at the time the law wa that it was impossible to be guilty of attempted theft if there was nothing to steal. This meant unless he was charged with burglary then he would escape liability.

Question 35

How now would the defendant in Walkington now be convicted of attempted theft?

Answer 35

as the law on attempts has been changed by the Criminal Attempts Act 1981

Question 36

Where doe the original use of the word trespasser in law come from?

Answer 36

civil law

Question 37

Under civil law, trespasser was entry without consent of the lawful occupier of the building. However, in Collins, how did the COA change this?

Answer 37

they made clear that more than this is required. The defendant must enter knowing he was a trespasser or was reckless as to whether he was entering the premises of another without consent

Question 38

What is important about ‘trespassing’ in criminal law?

Answer 38

it is important that the element of knowledge or recklessness is present

Question 39

What are the main problems which arise from the issue of the ‘trespasser’?

Answer 39

when the defendant has gone beyond the permission he was given to enter the building

Question 40

Another area of law on burgarly can be cruised when the judges have decided that a person who is not a trespasser can become one when he goes beyond the permission given to him. Which case affirmed this?

Answer 40

Smith and Jones

Question 41

What did the COA rule in Smith and Jones?

Answer 41

that the son of the householder was a trespasser where he had entered and stolen two television sets even though the father stated that his son would not be a trespasser in the house with a general permission

Question 42

Why was the concept of burglary originally made?

Answer 42

in order to protect people’s homes and other buildings from trespassers who intended to, or did, steal and so on

Question 43

Instead of burglary what would be the most obvious charge for the defendant in Smith and Jones?

Answer 43

theft