Criminal - Robbery, Burglary

Front 1

s. 14 (1) Criminal Justice (Theft and Fraud Offences) Act 2001 -Robbery

Back 1

s. 14 (1) Criminal Justice (Theft and Fraud Offences) Act 2001: an offence to steal and (previously or simultaneously) use force or seek to put any person in fear of being subjected to forces.

Robbery = Theft + Force (use or threat thereof).

To secure conviction, the Prsc must:

i. Prove all elements of theft;

ii. Prove that (a) either directly before or simultaneously, and

(b) in order to achieve the theft, the Def either

(a) used force,

(b) put any person in fear of force, or

(c) attempted to put any person in fear of force.

Front 2

R v. Dawson (1976)

Back 2

The slightest use of force suffices (here, merely jostling to steal a wallet).

Front 3

R v. Clouden (1987)

Back 3

Lack of resistance by the victim is immaterial.

Front 4

People (DPP) v. Mangan (1995)

Back 4

The force does not have to be directed against a person, provided it is calculated to put fear into the victim and preclude them from reacting to prevent the theft; here,

CCA upheld robbery conviction against a Def who had smashed the window of a nun’s car and snatched a handbag while the nuns were in the car.

Front 5

s. 12 (1) Criminal Justice (Theft and Fraud Offences) Act 2001 -Burglary

Back 5

s. 12(1) CJ (TFO) A 2001: an offence to

i. enter a building as a trespasser with the intent to commit an arrestable offence; or

ii. enter a building as a trespasser and then commit an arrestable offence therein.

For (i), the Prsc must prove trespass and intention – no later offence or attempt is necessary.

For (ii), the Prsc must prove trespass and later offence – no mens rea is necessary upon entry.

Penalty: maximum 14 years and/or unlimited fine.

Front 6

“Entry”

Back 6

Per Smith & Hogan: the test seems to be the old common law test of any body part being inside the building.

Front 7

R v. Brown (1985)

Back 7

Def smashed a shop window and got half his body in to steal the window display; this was held sufficient for entry; the test set out was that entry be “effective”.

Front 8

R v. Ryan (1996)

Back 8

Def was caught caught at the neck and trapped, with only his head and right arm inside the building; he argued: non-effective; court rejected this, implicitly rejecting that the entry must be “effective”.

Front 9

“Building”

Back 9

At common law: “a structure of considerable size intended to be permanent or at least endure for considerable time”.

s. 12(2) adds: any inhabited vehicle or vessel, regardless of whether the dweller is there or not.

Ultimately, this is a question of degree to be determined by a jury.

Front 10

“Trespasser”

Back 10

General test: whether the entrant has express/implied permission from an occupier/owner.

However, even permission is not enough if:

i. The permission does not extend to the part of the building which is entered;

ii. The permission is limited to a specific purpose and the entrant exceeds this purpose.

Front 11

Barker v. R (1983)

Back 11

Def was asked by a neighbour to keep and eye on the neighbour’s house while on holiday; he then stole furniture; Australian HC held that an entrant who enters a premises for a purpose alien to the permission enters as a trespasser.

Front 12

s. 13 Criminal Justice (Theft and Fraud Offences) Act 2001 - Aggravated Burglary

Back 12

s. 13: burglary + firearm/imitation firearm/weapon/explosive = aggravated burglary.

The requirement that the Def be armed at the time of burglary makes the distinction between the two types of burglary relevant: when does “burglary” actually occur?

Front 13

R v. Murphy (1972)

Back 13

Being in control of the weapon is the necessary factor; putting it down momentarily does not negate possession; leaving it in a car parked outside does.