Property Offences Flashcards
Robbery
Threatening force immediately before the theft.
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 of her salon to damage her 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 a 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.
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.
Quick Q:
The defendant has been arrested in relation to two allegations of robbery and is being assisted by the duty solicitor at the police station. The police disclosure details the following circumstances:
The defendant approached a man in a shopping centre. She grabbed hold of the man’s bag and shouted at him to hand the bag over to her, as well as his wallet. He did so but as she went to leave, a security guard approached her and she ran away, dropping the bag. As the defendant ran away, she sees a woman accidentally drop a £50 note on the floor, the defendant picked it up and continued to run. She was later arrested.
Which of the following best describes the advice that the duty solicitor should give her?
The defendant is liable for robbery in relation to bag and wallet. The defendant is liable for theft in relation to the £50 note.
Option E is the correct answer because the elements of robbery are satisfied in relation to the man’s wallet and bag. The mens rea and actus reus of robbery are satisfied as the defendant uses force on the man’s bag to steal the property. Force to property counts as force (R v Clouden [1987] Crim LR 56). It does not matter that the bag was not taken from the scene as the defendant has already appropriated the bag. In relation to the £50, the defendant is not liable for robbery because there is no threat or use of force used in order to steal. However, the defendant is guilty of theft as the owner of the £50 could have been located as the defendant saw her drop the note.
Option A is wrong as the defendant is not liable for robbery in respect of the £50 as threat/use of force was not used to steal.
Option B is wrong because it does not matter that the bag was left behind, the mens rea and actus reus of robbery is satisfied. The defendant had already appropriated the bag. The mens rea and actus reus of robbery are satisfied as the defendant uses force on the man’s bag to steal the property. Force to property counts as force (R v Clouden [1987] Crim LR 56). Likewise, as with Option A, the defendant is not liable for robbery in respect of the £50 as threat/use of force was not used to steal.
Option C is wrong because, as with Option B, the defendant is liable for robbery in respect of the bag.
Option D is wrong because the defendant is liable for robbery in respect of the bag. The defendant is not liable for robbery in respect of the £50 as threat/use of force was not used to steal.
