Robbery, Burglary and Blackmail Flashcards
What is the actus reus and mens rea for Robbery?
Actus reus - theft (appropriation of property belonging to another) with force on any person immediately before or at the time of stealing.
Mens rea - Dishonesty with intention to permanently deprive and use of force in order to steal
Which statutory provision does the definition for theft come from?
Section 1(1) Theft Act 1968
How does s1(1) Theft Act 1968 define theft?
Dishonest appropriation of property belonging to another with intention to permanently deprive.
In what three situations may the element of ‘force’ in robbery be satisfied?
- D actually uses force
- D puts V in fear of being subjected to force there and then (R v DPP and Grant v CPS)
- D seeks to put V in fear of being subjected to force there and then (R v Taylor)
Where is ‘force’ defined?
It is not defined in the Theft Act 1968. In R v Dawson & James ‘force’ was distinguished from ‘violence’ and a nudge from D was held to be force.
Is it possible to rob someone without touching them?
Yes, it is possible to apply force through an item without directly touching them (R v Clouden c/f P & Others v DPP).
What difficulty arises if the use or threat of force occurs after the theft? What solution is there for this issue?
The theft has been completed and the use of force has not occurred ‘immediately before or at the time of stealing’. However, the jury may decide when the appropriation ends (R v Hale).
What is the actus reus and mens rea for blackmail?
Actus reus - demand with menace
Mens rea - unwarranted with a view to gain for himself or cause loss to another
What are the ways a demand can be made?
Explicitly or implicitly (Collister v Warhurst)
Through a 3rd party (R v Thumber)
In writing, as soon as it is sent and immaterial of whether V acknowledges it (Treacy v DPP)
How may we define ‘menace’?
‘not limited to threats of violence but as including threats of any action detrimental to or unpleasant to the person’ (per Lord Wright in Thorne v Motor Trade Association).
What is the test for finding ‘menace’?
- Either V was not affected but a normal person would be, or
- V was affected and D knew of V’s infirmity (R v Garwood)
Does D actually need to carry out the menace?
No, as soon as an unwarranted demand with menace is expressed there is an offence (s21(2) and R v Lambert).
What is meant by an ‘unwarranted’ demand?
An unwarranted demand according to s21(1) Theft Act 1968 is one in which D does not:
a) believe he has reasonable grounds for making the demand, and
b) believe the use of a menace is a proper means of reinforcing the demand
The test in s21(1) for an unwarranted demand is subjective, but which word makes it like the subj/obj Ghosh test?
D must believe their menace is a ‘proper’ means of reinforcing their demand. If D understands reasonable people would not use such a menace the subjective element is satisfied.
Which case tells us that D’s upbringing may be taken into account when deciding whether they believed their menace to be a proper means of reinforcing their demand?
Arthur v Anker
What two common ‘proper’ means are given by defendants?
- V owes D
2. D has a legal right to something V has
What have been improper means of reinforcing a demand? Name five.
- Using force to recover a debt (R v Lawrence and Pomroy)
- Revealing embarrassing photos etc (R v Kewell and R v St Q)
- Exposing sexual affairs or immoral behaviour (R v Bernhard)
- Any criminal action (R v Lambert)
- If D knows he is committing a crime (R v Harvey)
Which provision of the Theft Act 1968 clarifies what is meant by ‘with a view to gain or cause loss’? What does it say?
Section 34 says gain/loss in the Theft Act 1968 only applies to money or other property, whether temporary or permanent, and gain may mean keeping what one has as well as getting what one hasn’t got, and loss includes not getting what one might get as well as parting with what one has.
Does the loss or gain actually need to materialise for there to be an offence?
No (R v Custance)
Can there be a view to gain where that gain is alleviating pain?
Yes (R v Bevan)
May other motives discredit a view to gain or cause loss?
No (R v Dooley)
Does D have to have intent to make gain or cause loss at the time of the offence?
Yes (Dooley)
What is the actus reus and mens rea for s9(1)(a) burglary?
Actus reus - enters a building or part of as a trespasser and commits an ulterior offence under s9(2)
Mens rea - knowing or being reckless as to entry as a trespasser and at the time of entry intended to commit an ulterior offence in 9(2)
What is the authority for ‘enters’ in burglary?
In R v Ryan the court settled by saying it was up to the jury. The old common law says entry occurs where any part of the person’s body enters (advocated by Smith & Hogan).
What is a building for the purposes of burglary?
A ‘structure of considerable size and intended to be permanent or at least endure for a long time’ (Stevens v Gourlay).
Section 9(4) includes an inhabited vehicle or vessel.
In B and S v Leathley a container was held to be a building (c/f Norfolk Constabulary v Seekings & Gould).
Part of a building may also qualify (R v Walkington). It is a question for the jury.
When is a person a trespasser for the purposes of burglary?
When they have no consent (R v Collins) or have exceeded their consent (R v Jones and Smith).
