Robbery and Burglary

Question 1

Robbery - statutory reference

Answer 1

‘(1) A person is guilty of robbery if he steals, and immediately before or at the time of doing so, and in order to do so, he 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 on conviction on indictment be liable to imprisonment for life.’ (s 8 Theft Act 1968)

Question 2

Robbery - actus reus

Answer 2

• Actus reus of theft
• Force (in one of 3 ways - (1) uses force, (2) puts any person in fear of being then and there subjected to force, or (3) seeks to put any person in fear of being then and there subjected to force)
• On any person
• Immediately before or at the time of stealing

Question 3

Robbery - mens rea

Answer 3

• Mens rea of theft

- Intention to use force in order to steal

Question 4

No theft, no robbery

Answer 4

Robbery is an aggravated form of theft, so a conviction for robbery will only be satisfied if all the elements of theft as defined in s 1(1) TA 1968 are satisfied.

R v Robinson - Conviction quashed because trial judge failed to direct the jury that he was entitled to an acquittal if he believed he had the legal right to take the property (as this is required for theft).

Question 5

Theft - actus reus and mens rea recap

Answer 5

Actus reus:
- Appropriation (s 3)
- Property (s 4)
- Belonging to another (s 5)
Mens rea:
- Dishonestly (s 2(1), Ivey v Genting Casinos)
- With the intention to permanently deprive (s 6)

Question 6

Robbery - actus reus: force or threat of force; 3 ways

Answer 6

(1) Uses force
(2) Puts a person in fear of being then and there subjected to force
(3) Seeks to put a person in fear of being then and there subjected to force.

This is the aggravating element that raises theft to robbery.

Question 7

Robbery - actus reus: (1) use of force

Answer 7

Not defined in the TA 1968 and is a matter of fact for the jury, but it does not require violence.

R v Dawson and James - One man nudged the victim while the other took his wallet. Conviction for robbery was upheld. As force is an ordinary word which juries can be expected to understand, it is a matter for them as to whether something is force.

R v Clouden - Defendant approached the victim from behind and wrenched her shopping bag out of her grasp. Force to detach property can count as force on the person.

P and Others v DPP - Defendant removed a cigarette from the victim’s hand. 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. It was compared to being pickpocketed.

Question 8

Robbery - actus reus: (2) puts a person in fear

Answer 8

A threat by the defendant which causes the person to think that force will be used against them or at the very least apprehend that fact, will be enough.

R v DPP - no need for the victim to actually FEAR the specific force they think will be used against them, just apprehend or think it will happen. Otherwise defendants that threaten someone especially brave would be able to avoid liability.

Question 9

Robbery - actus reus (3) seeks to put in fear

Answer 9

The defendant can still be liable even if the person is not aware that they are being threatened with force, provided the defendant intends to make that person think they will be subjected, then and there, to force.

R v Taylor - Defendant handed a bank cashier a note which demanded that the cashier hand over money otherwise D would hurt the customer behind him. The defendant did not seek to put the customer in fear because the threat was directed to the bank cashier, and not the customer themselves. No robbery.

Question 10

Robbery - actus reus: on any person

Answer 10

The threat or use of force can be directed at any person, not necessarily towards the person from whom the property is stolen.

Question 11

Robbery - actus reus: immediately before or at the time of stealing

Answer 11

Difficulties will arise if the threat or use of force occurs after the theft has technically been committed.

R v Hale - Defendants appealed, as they had used force to escape after stealing the property rather than to steal the property. The court applied the continuing act theory and dismissed the appeal. The jury were entitled to rely on the use of force after seizing the property, provided they were satisfied that this force had been used in order to steal.

Question 12

Robbery- mens rea: further considerations

Answer 12

Defendant must:

• act with the mens rea of theft; and
• intend to use force in order to steal.
• the continuing act theory from R v Hale might be useful in cases where the defendant has started stealing before force is used.
• force must be used at the time of the theft. Force was used against two victims as part of a fight and a bike was taken by the defendants as an afterthought. This was not robbery as the intention to permanently deprive was formed at a later point in time than when the force was used (R v Vinall)

Question 13

Burglary - statutory reference

Answer 13

Theft Act 1968 s 9(1)(a) or s 9(1)(b)

Question 14

Section 9(1)(a) burglary - actus reus

Answer 14

The defendant must:

• Enter
• A building or part of a building
• As a trespasser

Question 15

Section 9(1)(a) burglary - mens rea

Answer 15

• Knowing or being reckless as to entry as a trespasser
• At the time of entry D intended any of the ulterior offences listed in TA 1968, 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.

Question 16

When is the offence of a s 9(1)(a) burglary committed?

Answer 16

s 9(1)(a) burglary is complete upon entry, provided this is done as a trespasser and accompanied by the intention to commit an ulterior offence. There is no need for the defendant to actually commit the ulterior offence.

Question 17

Section 9(1)(a) burglary - actus reus: ‘enters’

Answer 17

R v Ryan - The defendant was found with his head and one arm stuck through the window of the house. CoA held that partial presence is all that is required for entry.

Question 18

Section 9(1)(a) burglary - actus reus: ‘building’

Answer 18

s 9(4) TA 1968 - for the purposes of s 9(1) and 9(2), ‘building’ includes an inhabited vehicle or vessel, whether the person living there is present at the time or not. A question of fact.

Stevens v Gourley - A building must be ‘a structure of considerable size and intended to be permanent or at least endure for a considerable time.’

B and S v Leathley - Freezer container used to store frozen food, detached from wheels, had been in position for 2 years, was fitted with electricity and was 25 feet long by 7 feet square, held to be a building.

Norfolk Constabulary v Seekings and Gold - Two containers, still on wheels, positioned at rear of supermarket and used for temporary storage held not to be buildings.

Question 19

Section 9(1)(a) burglary - actus reus: ‘part of a building’

Answer 19

R v Walkington - D entered a department store lawfully and then went into an area bounded by a moveable counter where he opened a cash till. What amounts to part of a building is for a jury to decide. It was clear the defendant knew he was not allowed in this area, so it was open to the jury to find it was part of a building.

Question 20

Section 9(1)(a) burglary - actus reus: ‘as a trespasser’; two ways someone can be a trespasser

Answer 20

(1) Entering without consent

(2) Entering in excess of authority

Question 21

Section 9(1)(a) burglary - actus reus: ‘as a trespasser’; entering without consent

Answer 21

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 (R v Collins)

For burglary, it must be proved that a person entered the building (or the part of the building) as a trespasser, i.e. they were a trespasser at the time they entered, and not that they became one later

Question 22

Section 9(1)(a) burglary - actus reus: ‘as a trespasser’; entry in excess of authority

Answer 22

R v Jones and Smith - J and S entered the home of S’s father and took two TV sets. At the trial, S’s father said that his son could never be a trespasser in his house. The appeals were dismissed because their entry was in excess of the permission given to them. ‘a person is a trespasser…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’

Question 23

Section 9(1)(a) burglary - mens rea: ‘Enters knowing or being reckless that the entry was a trespass’

Answer 23

It need not be proved in law that they knew they were a trespasser. The defendant merely has to know or be reckless as to the facts which make them a trespasser, e.g. entering in excess of permission.

Question 24

Section 9(1)(a) burglary - mens rea: ‘Intending to commit one of the ulterior offences contained in s 9(2) TA 1968 at the time of entry

Answer 24

Upon entry, the defendant must:

• Intend to steal from the building or part of the building;
• 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

Question 25

Section 9(1)(a) burglary - mens rea: conditional intent

Answer 25

An intention to simply have a look inside the property and only steal anything they feel is worth stealing has been held to count as intention (AG’s References (No1 and No2 of 1979))

Question 26

Section 9(1)(b) burglary - requirements

Answer 26

• 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:
  (i) stole something from the building or part of the building
  (ii) attempted to steal something from the building or part of the building
  (iii) inflicted GBH on any person
  (iiii) attempted to inflict GBH on any person

Question 27

When is a s 9(1)(b) burglary committed?

Answer 27

s 9(1)(b) 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. The burglary is committed at the time of the commission or attempted commission of the offence, not at the time of entry.

Question 28

s 9(1)(b) burglary - must commit/attempt to commit theft or inflict/attempt to inflict GBH

Answer 28

• The full actus reus and mens rea for theft or attempted theft are required.
• If the charge is based on infliction of GBH, a number of acts may suffice. No offence and no mens rea is actually required in relation to infliction of GBH. All is needed is the infliction of serious harm (R v Jenkins)

Question 29

Aggravated burglary - statutory reference

Answer 29

Theft Act 1968, s 10
‘(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 of 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.’

Question 30

Why do we need the extra offence of aggravated burglary?

Answer 30

Maximum sentence for burglary is 14 years where the building or part of the building is a dwelling, or 10 years in any other case (s 9(3) TA 1968).
The maximum sentence for aggravated burglary is raised to life imprisonment (s 10(2) TA 1968).
The reasoning is that entry with such a weapon could have potentially fatal consequences.

Question 31

What will amount to a ‘weapon of offence’?

Answer 31

Any article:

• made or adapted for causing injury or incapacitating a person
• which, at the time of committing the burglary, the defendant possesses with the intention of causing injury to or incapacitating a person.

R v Stones - The defendant was seen running away from a house that had been burgled, with a knife in his possession. He claimed it was for self-defence. Held that there is no requirement that the intended use was with respect to the particular burglary.

R v Kelly - K used a screwdriver to break into a house and when surprised by the householder in the middle of attempting theft, stabbed them with it. His appeal was dismissed. This was a s 9(1)(b) burglary, so the time at which K had to be proved to have had a weapon of offence was at the time he actually stole. The screwdriver would become a weapon of offence when K intended to use it to cause injury to or incapacitate a person. He had this intent by the time of the theft.

Question 32

When must D have the article with them?

Answer 32

It is important to establish that D has the offending article with them at the time they commit the relevant burglary, so for a s 9(1)(a) burglary, at the time of entry, and for a s 9(1)(b) burglary, on commission or attempted commission of theft or GBH.

R v O’Leary - Appellant forced entry into a house when unarmed. He then picked up a knife once inside where he confronted the occupants. CoA held that the time he must have the weapon was the time he actually stole (s 9(1)(b)), which was when he confronted the householders and demanded their cash.

R v Francis - K and two other men, one of which had a piece of pole in his hand, wrenched open the door of a caravan and demanded money from the occupant. The occupant ran outside and once outside, was attacked with the pole. There was no evidence the accomplice with the pole ever entered the caravan. K was the one who entered without the pole and committed burglary. The appeal was allowed as there was no entry with the weapon (s 9(1)(a)).