Robbery and Burglary Flashcards
What are the requirements for robbery?
Actus reus:
* Actus reus of theft
* Force (in one of three ways - uses force, puts any person in fear or seeks to put any person in
fear of being then and there subjected to force)
* On any person
* Use or threat of force immediately before or at the time of stealing
Mens rea:
* Mens rea of theft
* Intend to use force in order to steal
Can there be robbery without theft?
Facts: The defendant ran a clothing club. He was charged, inter alia, with robbery from the victim who contributed, with his wife, to the club. The defendant and two others approached the victim, whose wife owed £7 to the club. A fight ensued and the defendant brandished a knife. A £5 note
fell from the pocket of the victim. The defendant took the note and asked for £2 more. The defendant’s defence at court was that he was not dishonest because he received the money as payment for the debt.
Held: His conviction was quashed on the grounds that the trial judge had failed to direct the jury that he was entitled to an acquittal if he believed he had the legal right to take the property. See s 2(1)(a). This case illustrates the legal principle that if there is no theft, there can be no robbery.
What constitutes force or threat of force?
(a) Uses force; or
(b) Puts a person in fear of being then and there subjected to force; or
(c) Seeks to put a person in fear of being then and there subjected to force.
One man nudged the victim while another took his wallet is force.
Force used against the property must cause force against the person for this element to be satisfied. Force to detach property can count as force on the person and had done so here, so the conviction was upheld.
The defendant removed a cigarette from the victim’s hand. The Administrative Court held that there was no force as there had been no direct contact, any indirect contact was very minimal and there was no evidence of resistance from the victim.
The court likened the defendant’s acts to that of a pickpocket.
This was confirmed by the Divisional Court in R v DPP [2007] EWHC 739, where it was held that there is no need for the victim to fear the force they think will be used against them. This makes sense, otherwise defendants could avoid liability if they happen to threaten a particularly brave
person
The defendant handed a bank cashier a note which demanded that the cashier hand over money otherwise D would hurt the customer standing behind him. No force was used against the customer standing behind him, nor was the customer put in fear that he would be subjected then
and there to force. In this case, neither could it be argued that the defendant sought to put the customer in fear that he would be subjected then and there to force because his threat against the customer was directed to the bank cashier.
Held: There was no robbery, however, the defendant had committed an offence of blackmail.
When is the mens rea absent from theft with force?
R v Vinall [2012] 1 Cr App R 29 highlights that force must be used at the time of theft. In this case, force was used against two victims during a fight and a bike was taken by the defendants as an afterthought and then left abandoned. It was held that where an intention to permanently deprive is formed at a later point in time than force is used, there would not have been a theft at the time the force was used and therefore no conviction for robbery.
What constitutes a 9(1)(a) burglary?
Actus reus:
* The defendant enters
* A building or part of a building
* As a trespasser
Mens rea:
* Knowing or being reckless as to entry as a trespasser
* At the time of entry D intended any of the ulterior offences listed in s 9(2):
- Steal anything in the building or part of the building;
- Inflict grievous bodily harm on any person in the building or part of the building; or
- Damage unlawfully the building or anything therein.
What constitutes entering?
Facts: The defendant was found by an elderly resident with his head and one arm stuck through the window of the house. The defendant argued that since he was stuck and had to be removed by the fire brigade, his conduct did not constitute an entry in law as required by s 9(1).
Held: The Court of Appeal held that partial presence is all that is required and that it did not matter that the defendant was not physically able to steal from the premises.
What constitutes a building or part of a building?
The Theft Act 1968 only contains a partial definition of this element. According to s 9(4), ‘building’ for the purposes of the TA 1968, s 9(1) and (2) includes an inhabited vehicle or vessel, whether the person living there is present at the time or not.
Outside this, guidance can be sought from case law. What constitutes ‘a building’ is a question of fact.
The case of Stevens v Gourley [1859] 7 CBNS 99 held that a building must be ‘a structure of considerable size and intended to be permanent or at least endure for a considerable time’.
This case involved a freezer container used to store frozen food, which was detached from its chassis and was resting on railway sleepers. It had been in position for two years and was fitted with electricity and was 25 feet long by seven feet square.
Held: It was held to be a building.
Facts: In this case, two similar containers, still on their wheeled chassis, positioned at the rear of a supermarket and used for temporary storage.
Held: They were not buildings even though electricity was laid on. The only way that burglary could be committed would be if they were inhabited.
Facts: D entered a department store lawfully and then went into an area bounded by a moveable three-sided counter where he opened a cash till.
Held: What amounts to a part of a building is a question of fact for the jury to decide. On the facts of this case, it was clear that the defendant knew that he was not allowed into the till area.
Consequently, the jury could find that he had entered part of a building.
What does it mean to trespass?
Entry into a building or part of a building is a trespass where the building or part entered is in the possession of another, who does not consent to the entry
it is our view that a person is a trespasser for the purpose of s 9(1)(b) of the Theft Act 1968 if he enters premises of another knowing that he is entering in excess of the permission that has been given to him, or being reckless as to whether he is entering in excess of the permission that has been given to him to enter. Provided that the facts are known to the accused which
enable him to realise that he is acting in excess of the permission given or that he is acting recklessly as to whether he exceeds that permission, then that is sufficient for the jury to decide that he is in fact a trespasser.
What is the mens rea for Section 9(1)(a) burglary?
Enters knowing or being reckless that the entry was a trespass: It need not be proved that the defendant knew in law that they were a trespasser. The defendant merely has to know or be reckless as to the facts which make them a trespasser, for example acting in excess of permission.
Intending to commit one of the ulterior offences contained in s 9(2) at the time of entry: It must be proved that upon entry the defendant intended to commit one of the ulterior offences listed in s 9(2). Therefore, upon entry the defendant must:
* Intend to steal from the building or part of the building; and/or
* Intend to inflict GBH on any person in the building or part of the building; and/or
* Intend unlawfully to damage the building or anything in the building or part of the building.
Conditional intent
Before we leave the mens rea of s 9(1)(a), what if the intention of the defendant is simply to have a look inside the property and only steal anything they feel is worth stealing?
Such a conditional intention has been held to count as an intention in A-G’s References (Nos 1 & 2 of 1979) [1979] 3 All ER 143 (CA).
What constitutes a Section 9(1)(b) burglary?
- The defendant entered
- A building or part of a building
- As a trespasser
- Knowing or being reckless as to entry as a trespasser
- D did one of the following:
- Stole something from the building or part of the building
- Attempted to steal something from the building or part of the building
- Inflicted GBH on any person
- Attempted to inflict GBH on any person.
When is the offence of s 9(1)(b) burglary committed?
A s 9(1)(b) burglary requires that once inside the building (or part of the building), having entered as a trespasser, the defendant goes on to commit theft or GBH or attempts to commit these offences.
The burglary is committed at the time of the commission or attempted commission of the offence.
Must the full actus rea and mens rea be met for offences under 9(1)(b)?
The full actus reus and mens rea for theft or attempted theft are required.
If, on the other hand, the charge is based upon an infliction of grievous bodily harm, a number of different crimes may suffice. This is because, unlike s 9(1)(a), s 9(1)(b) does not specify that the defendant must intend to inflict grievous bodily harm and the term grievous bodily harm describes a level of harm rather than a specific offence. Therefore a number of offences can fall
within s 9(1)(b), such as the Offences Against the Person Act 1861:
* Section 18; and
* Section 20.
The case of R v Jenkins states that no offence and thus no mens rea at all is required in relation to the infliction of grievous bodily harm.
What is aggravated burglary?
(1) ‘A person is guilty of aggravated burglary if he commits any burglary and at the time has with him any firearm or imitation firearm, any weapon of offence, or any explosive; and for this purpose –
(a) ‘firearm’ includes an airgun or airpistol, and ‘imitation firearm’ means anything which has the appearance of being a firearm, whether capable of being discharged or not; and
(b) ‘weapon of offence’ means any article made or adapted for use for causing injury to or incapacitating a person, or intended by the person having it with him for such use; and
(c) ‘explosive’ means any article manufactured for the purpose of producing a practical effect by explosion, or intended by the person having it with him for that purpose.
(2) A person guilty of aggravated burglary shall on conviction on indictment be liable to imprisonment for life.
Why do we need another offence of burglary?
Consider the maximum sentences set out in the statute for burglary and aggravated burglary.
* The maximum sentence for burglary is set out in s 9(3) Theft Act 1968 as:
- 14 years, where the building or part of a building was a dwelling; or
- 10 years, in any other case.
* The maximum sentence for aggravated burglary is set out in s 10(2) as life imprisonment.
Burglary when in possession of a firearm, weapon of offence or explosive is deemed so serious to warrant a maximum of life imprisonment. The reason given by the Criminal Law Revision Committee at the time for this maximum sentence is that aggravated burglary could be very
frightening to anyone in the building and could potentially lead to fatal consequences.
What will amount to a ‘weapon of offence’?
If you break down the wording of s 10(1)(b) a ‘weapon of offence’ can be any article:
* Made or adapted for causing injury to or incapacitating a person; or
* Which, at the time of committing the burglary, the defendant possesses with the intention of causing injury to or incapacitating a person.
Key case: R v Stones [1989] 89 Cr App R 26 (CA)
Facts: The defendant was seen running away from a house which had just been burgled. He had a knife in his possession. He claimed he had to for self-defence.
Held: The phrase ‘intended by the person having it with him for such use’ does not impose a requirement to prove that the intended use was with respect to the particular burglary.
Key case: R v Kelly [1993] 97 Cr App R 245 (CA)
Facts: K used a screwdriver to break into a house. When surprised by the householder, K told him to unplug the video and then stabbed the householder with the screwdriver. On leaving, K was arrested with a video in one hand and the screwdriver in the other.
Held: His appeal against conviction for aggravated burglary was dismissed. The court said that K was charged on the basis of the Theft Act 1968, s 9(1)(b). Therefore, the time at which K had to be proved to have had a weapon of offence, in order to be guilty of aggravated burglary, was at the
time that he actually stole. The screwdriver would become a weapon of offence when K intended to use it for causing injury to, or incapacitating any person. He had this intent by the time of the theft. This construction followed from the clear language of the Theft Act 1968, s 10 and was consistent with its purpose.
