ws7

Question 1

Vinall [2011]

Answer 1

Robbery charge quashed as D’s were not proven to have an intention to permanently deprive the victim of his property at the point where force was used

Without a theft, there can be no robbery.

Question 2

Dawson (1976)

Answer 2

Court held that ‘force’ is an ordinary word, will be determined by the jury

Question 3

Clouden [1987]

Answer 3

Force can be indirectly applied, or applied to property.

Question 4

P v DPP [2013]

Answer 4

D snatched a cigarette from V’s hand without making contact with V

Slight touching - not deemed force.

Question 5

Hale (1978)

Answer 5

Considered whether the appropriation was a continuous act

Determined that this is a question for the jury as in Atakpu.

Question 6

Brown [1985]

Answer 6

• D only half entered a shop, still convicted

- Court confirmed there must be an ‘effective’ entry, but this is a question of fact for the jury

Question 7

Ryan [1996]

Answer 7

Court found that entry of some part of D’s body could amount to an effective entry

The fact D was stuck and incapable of committing any crime was irrelevant

Question 8

Boyle [1954]

Answer 8

Under the old law -

courts held that where D gains entry by deception he is a trespasser

Question 9

Jones and Smith [1976]

Answer 9

• D could be a trespasser where he has permission to enter for lawful purposes, and enters for an unlawful purpose and knew or was reckless that he was exceeding the terms of the permission given
• In order for this to apply, D must, at the time of entry, intend to exceed the terms of consent given (or be reckless to it)

Question 10

Collins [1973]

Answer 10

• Court confirmed that the mens rea for entry as a trespasser under s 9(1)(a) was that:
• At the time of entry into the building, D must either know, or be reckless as to, whether he was a trespasser.
• Also the same for s 9(1)(b)

Question 11

Walkington [1979]

Answer 11

• D went around a three-sided counter to get to the till, was deemed a separate part of the building
• Court held that this is a question for the jury, but in this case, there was ample evidence due to the implied prohibition (physical demarcation).

Question 12

A-G Reference (Nos 1 and 2 of 1979) [1980]

Answer 12

• Court confirmed that where D enters property looking to steal, conditional intent is sufficient (i.e. I will steal the money if the safe is open)
• Same principle would presumably apply to a conditional intent to cause GBH or Criminal Damage