Robbery: s.8 Theft Act 1968
*essentially ‘aggravated theft’ - theft is an either-way offence whilst robbery is indictable only
Actus Reus
• AR of theft: appropriation, property, belonging to another
◦ Without these elements there cannot be a robbery
• Additional AR:
◦ Defendant used force on any person or put any person in fear of immediate force
‣ Force is determined by the jury (Dawson) - does not need to be substantial
• Snatching a cigarette without touching a person did not constitute as force (P v DPP)
‣ Force can be against a victims property or any other person (Clouden)
◦ The force or threat of force was immediately before or at the time of the theft
‣ If appropriate is continuing, then force can be after the initial appropriation (Hale - stole jewellery box and then
tied up victim, considered a continuous theft)
• Continuing or instantaneous theft is a question for the jury as established in (Atakpu)
Mens Rea
• MR for theft: dishonesty, intention to permanently deprive
◦ Without these elements there cannot be robbery (Vindall)
• Additional MR:
◦ The force was used in order to steal (intention or recklessness as to violence) (Prof. Smith in Law of Theft)
Buglrary: s.9 Theft Act 1968
Actus Reus:
• Enter
◦ There must be effective entry - question for the jury (Brown)
‣ Being stuck half in/half out of window was considered effective (Ryan)
‣ Use of instrument into building (e.g. child) would most likely be considered an extension of the defendant but no
current authority on this
• Building or part of a building
◦ s.9(4) TA 1968: includes inhabited vehicle or vessel, whether inhabitant is there or not
◦ ‘Part of a building’ means a different room or a roped off area/demarcated area or counter, etc (Walkington)
‣ The test:
• Was it clear that the defendant was prohibited from entering an area?
• Was the defendant aware of this when they entered the area?
• As a trespasser (AR/MR)
◦ AR: requires proof that defendant entered without permission
◦ MR: defendant knew they didn’t have permission or were reckless as to whether they had it
‣ MR for trespass must be present at the time of entry (Collins)
◦ Exceeding the scope of permission can amount to trespassing (Jones and Smith)
s.9(1)(b) burglary
s. 9(1)(a) burglary with intent
AR: commit the AR of theft/GBH/attempted theft/attempted
MR only: intend to commit theft/GBH/criminal
GBH
damage at the time of entry (but did not have MR of
the crimes)
MR: have the MR for theft/GBH/attempted theft/attempted
GBH (can be formed after entry)
Can be committed as soon as entry is made
Can only be committed when at least an attempt is made
Notes:
*can commit both offences (9(1)(a) & (b)
*conditional intent (breaking in intending to commit a crime conditioned on something) is sufficient intent (AG’s Ref. No.’s
1&2 of 1979)
*aggravated burglary (if armed) is a separate offence under s.10 TA 2968
*essentially ‘aggravated theft’ - theft is an either-way offence whilst robbery is indictable only
Actus Reus
• AR of theft: appropriation, property, belonging to another
◦ Without these elements there cannot be a robbery
• Additional AR:
◦ Defendant used force on any person or put any person in fear of immediate force
‣ Force is determined by the jury (Dawson) - does not need to be substantial
• Snatching a cigarette without touching a person did not constitute as force (P v DPP)
‣ Force can be against a victims property or any other person (Clouden)
◦ The force or threat of force was immediately before or at the time of the theft
‣ If appropriate is continuing, then force can be after the initial appropriation (Hale - stole jewellery box and then
tied up victim, considered a continuous theft)
• Continuing or instantaneous theft is a question for the jury as established in (Atakpu)
Mens Rea
• MR for theft: dishonesty, intention to permanently deprive
◦ Without these elements there cannot be robbery (Vindall)
• Additional MR:
◦ The force was used in order to steal (intention or recklessness as to violence) (Prof. Smith in Law of Theft)
Buglrary: s.9 Theft Act 1968
Actus Reus:
• Enter
◦ There must be effective entry - question for the jury (Brown)
‣ Being stuck half in/half out of window was considered effective (Ryan)
‣ Use of instrument into building (e.g. child) would most likely be considered an extension of the defendant but no
current authority on this
• Building or part of a building
◦ s.9(4) TA 1968: includes inhabited vehicle or vessel, whether inhabitant is there or not
◦ ‘Part of a building’ means a different room or a roped off area/demarcated area or counter, etc (Walkington)
‣ The test:
• Was it clear that the defendant was prohibited from entering an area?
• Was the defendant aware of this when they entered the area?
• As a trespasser (AR/MR)
◦ AR: requires proof that defendant entered without permission
◦ MR: defendant knew they didn’t have permission or were reckless as to whether they had it
‣ MR for trespass must be present at the time of entry (Collins)
◦ Exceeding the scope of permission can amount to trespassing (Jones and Smith)
s.9(1)(b) burglary
s. 9(1)(a) burglary with intent
AR: commit the AR of theft/GBH/attempted theft/attempted
MR only: intend to commit theft/GBH/criminal
GBH
damage at the time of entry (but did not have MR of
the crimes)
MR: have the MR for theft/GBH/attempted theft/attempted
GBH (can be formed after entry)
Can be committed as soon as entry is made
Can only be committed when at least an attempt is made
Notes:
*can commit both offences (9(1)(a) & (b)
*conditional intent (breaking in intending to commit a crime conditioned on something) is sufficient intent (AG’s Ref. No.’s
1&2 of 1979)
*aggravated burglary (if armed) is a separate offence under s.10 TA 2968
