Robbery and Burglary MCQs Flashcards
A man goes to sit behind a lady aged 85 on a bus. The lady has put her handbag on the seat beside her. The man leans forward and says to her, ‘if you don’t let me take your handbag, you will get punched!’ The lady is hearing impaired so does not hear what the man has said. The man realises she does not hear. When the bus approaches a stop, he grabs the handbag and jumps off the bus.
Has the man committed robbery?
The man has committed robbery because force can be applied to the handbag as well as to the person.
The man may have committed robbery if the jury decides the appropriation is continuing.
The man has not committed robbery because he has not used force in order to steal.
The man has committed robbery.
The man has not committed robbery because the force element of robbery is missing.
The man has committed robbery
Correct. He has sought to put the lady in fear of being then and there subjected to force. He has done this before stealing and in order to steal. He steals the bag when he grabs it.
The other options are incorrect.
‘Force’ can be established in three ways. Actual use of force is only one of them.
It is not necessary to show that there is a causal link between the force and the theft to establish the actus reus of robbery. The requirement for a causal link in the mens rea is satisfied here– he has used force in order to steal.
It is for the jury to decide when an appropriation has come to an end. However, where force is used or threatened before the appropriation takes place, it is unnecessary to apply the continuing act principle from R v Hale.
For robbery, the force must be used or threatened against a person, not property, R v Clouden.
A woman is walking her dog in the park. A man comes up to her and says quietly, so as not to attract attention from others in the park, ‘give me your handbag or I will kick your dog.’ The woman gives the man her handbag. The man kicks the dog anyway.
Has the man committed robbery?
Yes. The man has stolen, threatened force on the dog and done so immediately before stealing and in order to steal.
No. The man has stolen and used force, but he did not use the force immediately before or at the time of stealing and in order to steal.
No. The man has threatened force, but not against the person from whom he has stolen.
No. The man has not used force on any person.
Yes. The man has stolen and used force on the dog.
No. The man has not used force on any person.
Correct. He has not used force on any person or put or sought to put any person in fear of being then and there subjected to force as the threat is directed at the dog.
The other options are incorrect.
‘Force’ can be satisfied in three ways; actual use of force, putting someone in fear that they will be then and there subjected to force, or seeking to put someone in fear that they will be then and there subjected to force.
The force used or threatened does not have to be directed towards the person from whom the property is stolen.
The force used or threatened must be against a person, not property (and a dog is considered property for these purposes).
Appropriation may be a continuous act and it is for the jury to decide whether it has come to an end. If force is used or threatened during the continuation of the appropriation, the defendant may be liable for robbery, R v Hale.
Which of the elements below is common to burglary under s. 9(1)(a) and 9(1)(b) Theft Act 1968?
Intention to cause grievous bodily harm at the time of entry
Causing actual bodily harm
Trespassing
Causing criminal damage
Intention to steal at the time of entry
Trespassing
Correct. The actus reus for both offences is stated to include trespass. For s9(1)(a), a defendant must enter the building or part of it as a trespasser and for s9(1)(b), it must be shown that at the time of the theft, GBH or attempt to commit either, the defendant was in the building or part of it as a trespasser.
A man goes to his neighbour’s house, at his neighbour’s request, to feed the cats while the neighbour is on holiday. The man decides, before entering the house, that he will see if there is any money lying around which he can take. There is no money lying around.
Will the man be criminally liable for burglary on entering the house?
The man will not be liable for burglary on entering the house as he believes he had the neighbour’s permission to be there
The man will not be liable burglary on entering the house as he does not find any money to steal
The man will be liable for burglary on entering the house if there is money in the house
The man will not be liable for burglary on entering the house, but will be liable if, later, he enters a part of the house where he does not have his neighbour’s permission to be
The man will be liable for burglary on entering the house
The man will be liable for burglary on entering the house
Correct. He will be liable for a s 9(1)(a) offence as he has entered the house as a trespasser. He knew he was a trespasser and, at the time of entry, intended to steal. See R v Jones and Smith for entry in excess of permission constituting trespass and AG’s Ref (Nos 1 & 2 of 1979) for conditional intention being equivalent to intention.
The other options are incorrect.
Trespass occurs where the defendant enters a building or part of a building either without any permission or in excess of permission to be there.
The defendant must know or be reckless as to the facts which make him a trespasser.
A conditional intention to steal will suffice as part of the mens rea for burglary.
For a s 9(1)(a) offence, it is not necessary to prove that theft occurs.
