WS 7 - Robbery and Burglary Flashcards
STEP 2: State OFFENCE that D may have committed on the facts:
1) s.8(1) Theft Act 1968 – Robbery (indictable only: maximum sentence life imprisonment). OR;
2) s.9(1)(a) Theft Act 1968 – Burglary; and;
3) s.9(1)(b) Theft Act 1968 – Burglary
Actus Reus of Robbery
1) D stole
2) D either used force on any person, or put or sought to put any person in fear of being then and there (immediately) subjected to force
3) THE FORCE OR THREAT OF FORCE WAS IMMEDIATELY BEFORE, OR AT TIME OF THE THEFT
4) FORCE/THREAT OF FORCE WAS USED IN ORDER TO STEAL
Mens Rea of Robbery
1) D STOLE (I.E. THE MENS REA OF THEFT)
2) RECKLESSNESS OR INTENTION AS TO THE USE/THREAT OF FORCE
How great must the force be?
i. Is a matter for the jury in each case to determine; but need NOT be significant (R v Dawson (1976)
R v Dawson facts
2 Ds had jostled V, making it difficult for him to keep his balance, and at the same time another man had taken the V’s wallet. The Ds appealed against their conviction for robbery on the basis that the jostling could not, in law, amount to the use of force. Court of Appeal said whether it was force was matter for the jury. Trial judges says force must be substantial. CoA did not pass comment, but jury seem to suggest it does not need to be.)
R v Clouden
Force may be that applied to someone’s property
What is the requirement for robbery when the force is threatened against third party?
May be in relation to ANY PERSON (s.8(1) TA 1968). But, where force threatened against a 3rd party, 3rd party must be aware of this threat
What must be checked for on the facts with regards to timing of force?
must check that the force does not occur a long time before theft & whether the theft is complete
R v Hale
Jury to consider: Was the appropriation still continuing at the time the force was used? If yes, D may be guilty. Eveleigh LJ made it clear that the question of whether the appropriation was still continuing was a question to be determined by the jury
When is the D’s appropriation not dishonest?
Remember – D’s appropriation is not dishonest if falls within s.2(1) TA 1968 (e.g. D believes he would have had owners consent if owner knew)
What does prof smith say about intention/recklessness as to the use or threat of force?
Prof J.C. Smith in ‘The Law of Theft’ argues that recklessness is enough
Actus Reus for s.9(1)(a)
Enter
A building
As a trespasser
Mens Rea for s.9(1)(a)
Knows or reckless as to entering as a trespasser
Intention to commit theft, GBH or Criminal damage
Actus Reus for s.9(1)(b)
Enter
A building
As a Trespasser
Commit the AR of GBH/Attempted GBH or Theft/Attempted theft
Mens Rea for s.9(1)(b)
Knows or is reckless as to entering as a trespasser
Mens Rea of GBH or Theft
R v Brown [1985]
Court of Appeal: Entry must be EFFECTIVE for the purpose of burglary (question of fact for jury) Facts: upheld the conviction of D who leant in through a shop window for the purpose of stealing items from within the shop.
R v Ryan [1996]:
Facts: D convicted of burglary after being discovered by an elderly householder, firmly stuck with his head and arm inside a window. Entry of SOME PART of D’s body into premises could be effective entry (whether D is able to commit the crime is irrelevant)
NB - COULD be effective entry
Could an instrument inserted to commit the offence amount to burglary?
Where an INSTRUMENT is inserted to commit the offence, this amounts to entry (but not where it is used to gain access to building) [Prof Griew says would be the same under new law, in The Theft Act s 1968 and 1978]
a. s.9(4) TA 1968
‘building’ includes inhabited vehicles and vessels
To be a building the structure must have a…
degree of permanence
R v Walkington
. Cof A rejected argument, arguing that the till area was a separate part of the building which the D had entered as a trespasser. Geoffrey-Lane: Physical demarcation (e.g. roped off area; counter) which excludes the public from a certain area may indicate that this is a SEPARATE PART OF THE BUILDING (question of fact for the jury)
• Crucial to note that the defendant must enter a building or part of a building as a trespasser with the intention of either stealing or inflicting GBH in that building
Proof of what for AR trespassing?
a. Need proof that D ENTERED WITHOUT CONSENT/PERMISSION
R v Boyle [1954]:
Permission to enter gained through fraud is not true possession (NB – no direct authority for this under the new law)
R v Jones and Smith:
If the D enters a building with the intention of doing something contrary to a general permission to enter, this can be trespass
i. But – only if D knew or was reckless that he was exceeding the terms of permission given, and intended to do so at the time of entry
