It can be argued that using force on the bag was effectively using force on the victim, as the bag was wrenched from her hand. It was not possible to know whether the jury had decided that the intention to permanently deprive was formed at the time when the bicycle was first taken or when it was left at the bus stop.
3. The Court of Appeal thought that the jury could have come to the decision that there was force immediately before the theft when one of the defendants put his hand over the householder’s mouth.
Putting V ‘in fear of being there and then subjected to force’ is sufficient for robbery. No serious violence was used against the victim, but he was pushed and his arms were held while he was searched. This decision was in line with the Australian case of Barker v R (1983) 7 ALJR 426, where one person who was going away asked D, who was a neighbour, to keep an eye on the house and told D where a key was hidden should he need to enter. The defendant has to The d must have the intention to commit one of the offences He was found guilty of burglary. He habitation in it is not there as well as times when he is.
building area as a trespasser with the intention of stealing. This was held to be a building. He was charged with robbery and pleaded guilty. It had not been moved for over two years, had door and locks, and was connected to the mains electricity supply. In the last chapter we focused on the offence of theft. as the defendant lacked the intention or recklessness to trespass if he entered It rested on sleepers; it had doors/ locks and was connected to electricity this was held as a building.
The Theft Act 1968 does not define building but does give an extended meaning to it to include inhabited places such as houseboats or caravans, which would otherwise not be included in the offence. ‘It is our view that a person is a trespasser for the purpose of s 9(1)(b) of the Theft Act 1968 if he enters premises of another knowing that he is entering in excess of the permission that has been given to him to enter, or being reckless whether he is entering in excess of [that] permission.’.
However, in Byrne v Kinematograph Renters Society Ltd (1958) 2 All ER 579, a civil case, it was held that it was not trespass to gain entry to a cinema by buying a ticket with the purpose of counting the number in the audience, not with the purpose of seeing the film. shop with his upper body and arms through a broken window as he rummaged Rea as to whether or not it is trespassing. The It is usually easy to show that the defendant has trespassed The defendant was charged with burglary and subsequently appealed the decision to the Crown Court. Consequently, the defendant’s appeal was rejected. He was convicted of burglary under s 9(1)(a), ie that he had entered as a trespasser with intent to rape. The theft has taken place an hour after the use of force. Although ss 9(1)(a) and 9(1)(b) create different ways of committing burglary, they do have common elements. The jury should have been directed to consider whether he had a belief that he had a right in law to the money which would have made his actions not dishonest under s 2(1)(a) of the Theft Act. and the d need not have the Mens rea for when the ulterior offence is committed principle is that a person enters a building with the intention to steal, cause 5. Where force is used to steal, then the moment the theft is complete, there is a robbery. Norfolk Constabulary v Seekings & Gould  Crim LR 167 Case summary . As he was on the window sill outside the room, she woke up, thought he was her boyfriend and helped him into the room where they had sex. claimed that whilst balanced on the ladder the v had invited him in assuming he for over two years and was used as a storage facility. Brendan threatens staff in a post office with an imitation gun. In B and S v Leathley (1979) Crim LR 314 a 25-foot-long freezer container which had been in a farmyard for over two years was used as a storage facility. It would then be left to prosecutors to charge the components of theft and violence separately, which would focus the court’s attention on those two elements, separately and then (for sentencing purposes) in combination. This was because what had to be possessed had to be a ‘thing’ and that meant something which was separate and distinct from oneself. The judge directed the jury that D had honestly to believe he was entitled to get the money in that way. So if V is a plain clothes policeman put there to trap D and is not frightened, the fact that D sought to put V in fear is enough. ‘Entry’ is not defined in the 1968 Act. Finally it should be noted that the threat of force in the future cannot constitute robbery, although it may be blackmail. This carries a higher maximum sentence than burglary of other types of building as a result of an amendment to the Theft Act 1968 by the Criminal Justice Act 1991. For the crime of burglary to be an offence there it has to the store had closed, until he was discovered. In any event, there was some limited force used by holding the victim’s arms and pushing him.
14.1.4 Force immediately before or at the time of the theft, ROBBERY, BURGLARY AND OTHER OFFENCES IN THE THEFT ACTS. This point was argued in Lockley (1995) Crim LR 656. So if the force was not used for this purpose, then any later theft will not make it into robbery. sufficient for burglary. His head and right arm were inside the house but the rest of his body was outside. D ran a clothing club and was owed £7 by I’s wife. Ashworth also questions whether it is necessary for the offence to exist. The defendants took his mobile phone, £5 from his wallet, his watch and a travel card. To export a reference to this article please select a referencing stye below: Our academic writing and marking services can help you! a trespasser. This meant that Smith was guilty of burglary. Enters a building or part of a building as a trespasser. However, if a thief pulls a shoulder bag so that it slides off the victim’s shoulder, would this be considered force? D went into a counter area at a shop and opened a till. In Norfolk Constabulary v Seekings and Gould (1986) Crim LR 167 a lorry trailer with wheels which had been used for over a year for storage, had steps that provided access and was connected to the electricity supply was held not to be a building. The amount of force can be small.
Such as a college you must be a student at a college before you The victim said that he did not feel particularly threatened or scared but that he was bit shocked. There was no evidence that he This chapter discusses other offences contained in the Theft Act 1968, together with one offence from the Theft Act 1978. Case Summary There are two cases on whether a large storage container is a building. Ashworth also questions whether it is necessary for the offence to exist. NB Since May 2004, Collins would be charged with an offence under s 63, Sexual Offences Act 2003. • inflicts or attempts to inflict grievous bodily harm. The force can be against any person. evidence that he was not a trespasser when entering the store. D was found trapped in a window fame with his head and one entry which means that there must have been enough for the d in the building to D went into a counter area at a shop and opened a till. In these cases the court came to different decisions after looking at the facts. the Theft Act 1968. Brought to you by: © EBradbury & Rocket Education 2012 - 2020EBradbury & Rocket Education 2012 - 2020 The defendants, B and S, entered a freezer container that had been placed in a farmyard and stole goods from it. Before they left the house they tied up the householder and gagged her. The jury convicted Ds of robbery. D had made Using force to escape can still be at the time of the theft. type of situation it also goes a lot further.
boyfriend and demanded he left. This is usually seen as a typical situation was someone The first main case on this point was Collins (1972) 2 All ER 1105 (see section 14.2.4 for the facts of Collins). It rested on sleepers, had doors with locks and was connected to the electricity supply. This is putting a person in fear of being then and there subjected to force. the intention to steal or inflict GBH intention to cause GBH to building or attempting to commit the offences of a building. Force used for another purpose does not become robbery if D later decides to steal. A building comprised a structure of considerable size and be a trespasser at the time of entry as seen in cases of: D hid himself in the stock area of a department store when Registered office: Venture House, Cross Street, Arnold, Nottingham, Nottinghamshire, NG5 7PJ. For s 9(1)(b), what the defendant intended on entry is irrelevant, but the prosecution must prove that he actually committed or attempted to commit theft or grievous bodily harm. student cards. As this was happening, another five or six boys joined the first five and surrounded the victim.
The second problem is deciding the point at which a theft is completed, so that the force is no longer ‘at the time of stealing’. Burglary – definition of a ‘building under Theft Act 1968.
The late Professor Sir John Smith argued that this would mean that a person who enters a shop with the intention of stealing would be guilty of burglary as he only has permission to enter for the purpose of shopping. committed however for burglary the conditional intention has to be sufficient Whether the trailer was a ‘building’ for the purposes of the Theft Act 1968. intended to be permanent or at least to endure for considerable time. The gang then drive to the bank and steal money. There is no genuine permission to enter and D is a trespasser. Equally there is no robbery where D uses force to take that car. Any opinions, findings, conclusions or recommendations expressed in this material are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of LawTeacher.net. This would mean he was not dishonest and one of the elements of theft would be missing, as seen in Robinson (1977) Crim LR 173. D went into the counter area in a shop and opened a till. guilty of burglary. References to the above shall also apply to an inhabited Welocome to my second blog.
And that the d For the actus reus of burglary under s 9(1)(b) it has to be proved that D had entered a building or part of a building as a trespasser and then stolen or attempted to steal or inflicted or attempted to inflict grievous bodily harm.
was guilty of burglary under Section9-1(a) because he had entered part of a He took a jewellery box. It would seem right that the gang should be convicted of robbery.
In B and S v Leathley (1979) Crim LR 314 a 25-foot-long freezer container which had been in a farmyard for over two years was used as a storage facility. For robbery, theft has been held to be a continuing act.
Arnie holds a knife to the throat of a one-month-old baby and orders the baby’s mother to hand over her purse or he will ‘slit the baby’s throat’. such as when a d breaks into a house intending to steal if they find something If a person has permission to enter he is not a trespasser. The distinguishing feature between the subsections is the intention at the time of entry. It was clear that D was guilty of robbery as he had sought to put V in fear of being then and there subjected to force.