Robbery

Question 1

What is robbery

Answer 1

S 8 Theft Act 1968:
“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”.

Question 2

What is the actus reus of robbery

Answer 2

• The actus reus is therefore, 1. theft and 2. force, or putting or seeking to put anybody in fear of force.
• NB – the force must EITHER BE – immediately at the start or at any time during the theft.

Question 3

What is the mens rea for robbery

Answer 3

The mens rea needs to satisfy that the defendant had, 1. the mens rea to steal and 2. intended to use force in doing so.

Question 4

In what circumstances is there no robbery - in terms of theft

Answer 4

• Unless there is evidence of a ‘completed theft’, in other words, unless ALL of the elements of theft are present – dishonestly appropriating property belonging to another with the intention of permanently depriving them of it – then there is no robbery, just as there is no theft.
• In R v Zerei (2012), because D had abandoned the car he took, despite using violence on V to obtain it, meant that there was no robbery (because there’d been no theft). ̄_(ツ)_/ ̄ . Read R v Waters (2015) to see another case on this point.
• When force is used and the theft complete, then we have robbery – Corcoran v Anderton.

Question 5

Force or threat of force

Answer 5

• The prosecution also has to prove force or threat of force, although the amount of force used can be small. R v Dawson and James (1976), R v Clouden (1987).
• In P v DPP (2012), it was held that no direct contact between D and V meant no robbery.
• Putting V in ‘fear of force’ is enough for robbery.
• In some situations, there can be robbery even when the victim does
  not appear to be actually frightened. B and R v DPP (2007).
• ‘On any person’ means that the person threatened does not have to be the person from whom the theft occurs. E.g. a bank robbery

Question 6

Issues with ‘immediate force’

Answer 6

The definition of ‘immediately’. How long is this? For instance a bank manager who is attacked in his home, his bank branch keys taken and then money stolen from the bank hours later, or even 24 hours later over a weekend?
* A second issue arises at deciding the point of theft is complete. R v Hale (1979) – force used immediately before the theft and again later whilst the theft was ongoing and not yet complete. R v Lockley (1995) – despite force being used after V caught D shoplifting, the C of A upheld the conviction as the theft was ongoing and not yet complete.
* So, any force used after the theft is complete does not make it robbery. If in Lockley, D had left the shop after the shoplifting and the shopkeeper had chased him, but then force was used, that would not have been robbery.

Question 7

How many key elements are there of robbery

Answer 7

6

Question 8

State the key elements of robbery

Answer 8

Theft, which must be completed.
Robinson, Corcoran v Anderton.
- Force or threat of force, jury decides what this means. Dawson and James, Clouden.
- On any person, not necessarily on the victim of the theft, but anybody there at the time.
- Immediately before or at the time of the theft, must be a continuing act. If the theft is complete, it is not robbery. Hale, Lockley.
- In order to steal, if force is used for another purpose, it is not robbery, even if D decides afterwards to steal.
- Mens rea, intention to use force to steal

Question 9

What is burglary

Answer 9

Burglary is defined in s9 of the theft act in two parts A and B

Question 10

What does part A of the theft act state abiut buglary

Answer 10

S 9(1)(a)
Enters a building, or part of a building as a trespasser.
With intent to:
- Steal
- Inflict grievous bodily harm
- Do unlawful damage

Question 11

What is section 9b of burglar

Answer 11

S 9(1)(b)
Enters a building, or part of a building as a trespasser.
- Steals, or attempts to steal, or
- Inflicts or attempts to inflict grievous bodily harm

Question 12

Summary paragraph of section a and b

Answer 12

Therefore, there are two ways of committing burglary:
Either (a) the defendant enters with the intention of doing one of the three motives, but doesn’t necessarily mean the ulterior motive has to take place, or (b) they have to have entered and stolen or inflicted or attempted to inflict grievous bodily harm. Here the intention is irrelevant.

Question 13

Entry

Answer 13

Entry
The jury was asked to consider if entry was deemed to be ‘effective and substantial’ in Collins (1972) (more on this later), but in R v Brown (1985), this was modified to ‘effective’.
In Ryan (1996), there is no mention of even ‘efficient’. ‘Entry’ was deemed sufficient.

Question 14

Building or part of building

Answer 14

• Includes things like caravans and houseboats.
• Used to be confusion – in B and S v Leathley (1979), a freezer container was a ‘building’, but in Norfolk Constabulary v Seekings and Gould (1986), a lorry trailer was not.
• In Rodmell (1994), the judge stated that breaking into outbuildings is just as much burglary as breaking into a place people live. This might clear up the difficulties in the other two situations.
  When the trespasser might have permission to be in one part of a building, but not another, this can also be part of burglary. R v Walkington (1979). (More on this case later as well).

Question 15

As a trespasser and ‘going beyond permission’

Answer 15

If a person has permission to enter, they are not a trespasser. R v Collins (1972).
* For a charge of burglary, the defendant needs to know they were trespassing or were subjectively reckless as to whether they were trespassing.
* A person is also a trespasser if they go beyond permission to be somewhere. This means that even when the defendant has permission to be somewhere, if they abuse that permission by using it as an opportunity to steal something, this would probably make them guilty of burglary. R v Smith and Jones (1976).
* The situation is more difficult in shops, because if the defendant has entered the shop with the intention to steal, then, technically, they have gone permission to be there. This might be burglary, but unless D admits intent to steal, it would be difficult to prove.