Rob Burgle LGS 6 Flashcards
ROBBERY : s.8 Theft Act 1968
(1) Guilty of robbery if steals, and immediately before or during, and in order to do so, uses force on any person or puts or seeks to put any person in fear of being then and there subjected to force.
(2) A person guilty of robbery, or of an assault with intent to rob, shall be liable.. to life imprisonment…
Robbery is aggravated stealing. It is theft plus force. No theft - no robbery. So defences to dishonesty in s. 2(1) will prevent theft and therefore robbery.
Skivington [1968]
R v Robinson [1977]
D believed he had a right to the money, and it was not necessary to show he belived he had a right to take money in the way he did (wife’s wages at knifepoint from employer)
Confirmed Skivington. D believed he had a right to the money as a debt though requested with knife.
Threatened use of force
Actual force not necessary.\
B and R v DPP [2007]
Use of force
Note force not violence.
Not even necessary to put P in actual fear as long as D ‘seeks to put’ someone in fear.
If threat is force at some time in the future this will not be robbery, but could be blackmail (LATER).
R v Dawson [1976]
Robbery as one man nudged victim in order to take wallet.
Force must be to person not property (directly or indirectly)
Corcoran v Anderton (1980)
P v DPP [2012]
Woman pushed to the ground but kept hold of handbag. Robbery upheld - had appropriated the bag and used force.
D snatched a cigarette from the victim’s hand. However no direct contact between D and victim. Magistrates found that this amounted to force and he was convicted of robbery. D appealed.
Immediately before or at the time of doing so
If use or threat of force comes after the theft then it cannot be robbery. Timing of appropriation is fundamental. If appropriation completed and force is then used, there’s robbery, because force comes after the event.If force or threat comes a long time before the event then no robbery either, may be blackmail (see later).
R v Hale [1979]
R v Gregory (1982)
Appeal on basis that force threatened in order to escape not appropriate. Robbery upheld as appropriation regarded as a continuing act.
Burglary, but it confirms Hale, i.e. that appropriation may be a continuing process.
And in order to do so
Force must be used in order to steal. If it is used to make escape then that is unlikely to be robbery, not within the words of the statute.
Shendley [1970]
What he should have said was that if the jury were satisfied that S stole property but not satisfied that he used violence for the purpose of stealing they should find not guilty of robbery but guilty of theft. A conviction for theft was substituted.
* Note that such an incident could be theft and assault.
Actus Rea and Mens Rea of Robbery?
- AR & MR theft
- Immediately before or at the time of doing so
- Force or threat of force
- In order to steal
Sentencing
Robbery punishable with life imprisonment (s.8(2)).
Custodial sentences for robbery (and burglary – see below) has received much attention. Essence is whether there should be a deterrent policy in imposing sentences. Most criminologists argue such a policy is not effective, since robbers and burglars are not put off by a potential custodial sentence and are opportunistic rather than pre-planned. Politically there is pressure to ensure that robbers and burglars are incarcerated.
BURGLARY:
(l) A person is guilty of burglary if -
(a) enters building or part of a building as trespasser and with intent to commit any such offence mentioned in sub-s. (2) (i.e. stealing anything in the building or part of the building in question, inflicting GBH, doing unlawful damage to the building or anything therein); or
having entered any building or part of a building as a trespasser he steals or attempts to steal anything in the building or that part of it or inflicts or attempts to inflict on any person therein any GBH.
Note 2 separate types of burglary under sections 9(1)(a) and 9(1)(b) respectively (Downer [2009] EWCA Crim 1361). Check that you can identify actus reus and mens rea of each section. You should also note differences between any offences which D has to intend for 9(1)(a) and those to be completed or attempted for 9(1)(b)
s. 9 Theft Act 1968
Enters
R v Collins [1972]
R v Brown [1985]
R v Ryan [1996]
Defendant climbed through window and slept with woman, but was not found to have entered substantially without consent. Entry in excess of permission.
Part of body in shop display only.Though not found to be substantial, was found to have entered effectively.
Supports Prof. Smith argument that any entry should suffice, without the need for it being effective and substantial.
As a trespasser
Actus reus and mens rea. must be unlawful entry without the express or implied consent of the owner or occupier (or his agents). Accused must also know or be subjectively reckless that he is a trespasser (mere negligence as per the law of tort is not sufficient).
R v Jones & Smith [1976] *** check outcome
J and S entered the home of S’s father and took two television sets. They were convicted of burglary and appealed against conviction.
Building or part of a building
S. 9(4) states ‘building’ includes inhabited vehicle or vessel, and applies to such vehicle or vessel at times when the person having habitation is there or not.
B&S v Leathley [1979]
Contrast: Norfolk Constabulary v Seekings & Gould [1986]
Freezer container, fitted with electricity and was 25 by seven feet was held to be a building.
Two articulated trailers at rear of a supermarket used for temporary storage were not buildings though electricity was laid on and so remained vehicles. only way burglary could be committed would be inhabited trailer.
Part of a building
Worth noting that burglary can be committed by entering part of building and intending to commit any theft offence therein, or in fact committing theft, attempt theft, inflicting GBH or attempting to inflict GBH in that part of the building. can do different elements in different parts of building.
(i) House or Flat sharing.
(ii) Houses.
It may be burglary where one enters room of another with intent to steal. problem may arise where one of those sharing is the owner of the house, liability might depend on the terms of the agreement to rent the room and exclude others pursuant to an exclusive right to occupy. Flats similarly where one enters flat of another.
Semi-detached houses and terraced houses. depends on whether they are treated as one building or separate. If they are treated as one building then reliance may have to be placed upon entry to part of a building as a trespasser.
If treated as one building then he could not be charged with s. 9(1)(a), having entered a building as a trespasser with intent to steal, he is not a trespasser in the whole building. Would be guilty of burglary s. 9(1)(a) only when entered another part of the building (the next door house) as a trespasser.
If it is treated as two buildings then clearly there is no burglary until he enters the other house.
(iii) Shops.
R v Walkington [1979]
A “part of a building” does not necessarily mean a separate room, it could include a physically marked out area in a room.
Intended for use as a weapon of offence
at the time of committing the ulterior offence, did D have article in his custody intending to use it to cause injury or to incapacitate at that time, regardless of intention in respect of it he may previously have had?
R v Kelly [1993]
K used screwdriver to break into house. surprised by the householder, K told him to unplug the video and then pushed the screwdriver into his rib cage. On leaving K was arrested with a video in one hand and a screwdriver in the other. Was this aggravated burglary? Was the screwdriver a “weapon of offence” as defined in the Act?
