Robbery, Burglary and Blackmail Flashcards
A-G’s Reference (Nos. 1 and 2 of 1979)
Ratio: Conditional intent is sufficient for the MR of burglary.
B and S v Leathley
Ratio: Example of a building.
Facts: Concerned a large industrial freezer unit that had been in place for 2 years, was attached to electricity and had been taken off its wheels.
Norfolk Constabulary v Seekings and Gould
Ratio: Example of a structure that was not a building.
Facts: Concerned an industrial freezer unit that was still on its wheels.
R v Collins
Ratio: 1. Trespass means entering without permission. 2. The defendant only needs to know that he is intentionally or recklessly trespassing in fact, not in law.
Facts: Defendant climbed a ladder naked. Woman in the room thought he was her boyfriend and invited him in to have sex with her.
R v Jenkins
Ratio: No MR is required for GBH in a s.9(1)(b) burglary. Note that this has been criticised but is still good law.
R v Jones and Smith
Ratio: Entering as a trespasser includes entering in excess of permission.
Facts: Defendant entered his father’s house with permission. He then stole two TVs. Held he did not have permission to steal the TVs.
R v Kelly
Ratio: A weapon, which is not adapted for use, can become a weapon of offence when used during a burglary. It must be shown that D intended to use the object as a weapon of offence at the time the theft is committed.
Facts: Defendant brought a screwdriver with him when stealing from a house. He used it during the burglary by stabbing a man in the stomach with it.
R v Klass
Ratio: Defendant must enter with a weapon (aggravated s.9(1)(a) TA) or have it with him when carrying out the theft (for aggravated s.9(1)(b) TA).
R v Laing
Ratio: Defendant must be a trespasser at the time of entry to be liable for burglary.
Facts: Defendant hid in the back room of a shop and was later found. He had initially entered with permission.
R v O’Leary
Ratio: No requirement to have weapon at the time of entry for an aggravated s.9(1)(b) burglary but there is for aggravated s.9(1)(a).
Facts: Defendant entered house unarmed and later picked up a kitchen knife. Convicted of s.9(1)(b).
R v Ryan
Ratio: Entry occurs when any part of the body enters.
Facts: Defendant got his head and one arm stuck in a window while committing a burglary. This was held to constitute effective entry.
R v Stones
Ratio: Defendant only needs to have a weapon on him for aggravated burglary, no need to actually use it.
Facts: Defendant was caught with a knife when committing a burglary. He argued he had no intention of using it for the burglary but was using it for self-defence.
R v Walkington
Ratio: A part of a building can be a distinct area that a defendant is not allowed in, even if he has permissions to be in another part of the building.
Facts: Defendant opened a till behind a mobile reception desk. Held to be burglary as he did not have permission to be behind the desk.
Stevens v Gourley
Ratio: A building is ‘a structure of considerable size and intended to be permanent or at least to endure for a considerable time’.
R v Dawson and James
Ratio: For a robbery, the force need not be substantial.
Facts: A nudge was sufficient force.
R v Hale
Ratio: 1. For a robbery, the force need not be substantial. 2. Appropriation can be a continuing act so if force is used after the actual theft there may still be a robbery.
Facts: D and co-accused went into house with stockings on their heads. D put his hand over V’s mouth. Accomplice went upstairs and stole jewellery box. The men then tied V up and told her not to call the police for 5 minutes after they had left otherwise they would harm her son.
R v Clouden
Ratio: For robbery, force can be applied through property.
Facts: A handbag was pulled.
R v DPP
Ratio: For robbery, there is no need for the victim to actually fear force, sufficient to apprehend.
R v Taylor
Ratio: For robbery, there is no need for the victim to actually fear force, sufficient to apprehend.
Facts: D gave bank cashier a note which demanded that the cashier handed over money or D would hurt the customer behind him. No force was used at any point, nor was the customer in fear. No robbery.
R v Donaghy and Marshall
Ratio: The issue in determining whether the threat is made immediately before or at the time of stealing is whether the threat is working on the mind of the victim.
Ivey v Genting
Ratio: Test for dishonesty - 1. What was D’s actual state of knowledge/belief as to the facts surrounding his actions? 2. Once state of mind established, were his actions dishonest according to the standards of ordinary people?
R v Collister and Warhurst
Ratio: For blackmail, the demand can be express or implied.
Facts: Defendant were police officers who implied that the victim would be arrested unless he met them the following evening and gave them money.
R v Lawrence and Pomeroy
Ratio: Menaces is an ordinary word that needs no elaboration.
Thorne v Motor Trade Association
Ratio: Menaces means - a threat of ‘any action detrimental or unpleasant tot he person addressed’.
Facts: Claimant was a member of a trade union that had a stop list on which the names of those who had infringed an association rule were placed. The name would not be put on the list if the relevant member paid the fine within 21 days.
R v Clear
Ratio: 1. The menaces must be such that an ordinary person of normal stability and courage might be influenced by them. 2. Can consider facts about the particular victim that might make them vulnerable.
Facts: Defendant was driver of a transit vehicle with £3000 of good in. He had locked the vehicle and set the alarms but the goods were stolen. He refused to give evidence to this effect when asked by the MD unless he was paid £300. Convicted of blackmail.
R v Harry
Ratio: Menaces must be fairly stern.
Facts: D had written to a number of shopkeepers asking them to buy a poster in aid of charity to ‘protect you from any RAG activity which may inconvenience you’. Held not to be menaces.
R v Garwood
Ratio: Can consider facts about the particular victim that might make them vulnerable.
Facts: D accused V of having robbed his house. He asked the victim if he had a TV or some jewellery which he could have ‘to make it quits’. V gave him £10. D then demanded £20 three days later as protection money. V was particularly timid and D knew this.
R v Lambert
Ratio: 1. Menaces can be to a third party. 2. It doesn’t matter if the defendant doesn’t have the means to carry the menaces out.
R v Harvey, Ulyett and Plummer
Ratio: It is unlikely that a threat of a criminal offence will ever be proper.
Facts: Appellant had ordered £20,000 worth of cannabis from the victim. The victim did not deliver cannabis and so the defendant kidnapped the victim and his family in an attempt to get the money back. Although they had reasonable ground for making the demand in a sense, the menaces to kill the victim were not proper.
