2014 Special Study case table

HideShow resource information
  • Created by: becky
  • Created on: 13-06-14 18:55
Preview of 2014 Special Study case table

First 495 words of the document:

Case Critical point Analytical point 1 Analytical point 2 Linked case Further comments
R v Hale 1978 Hale established that COA that the force Placing a hand on the Lockley (1995) indicates It could be argued that
`appropriation' in robbery is a used must be in order victims mouth mounted to that the courts have `continuing act' has
continuing act to steal. force. Force does not adopted a rather flexible been used as a tool
D argued that the theft was The threats and theft, need to be substantial approach regarding for public policy.
done once he had taken the although required to This confirmed the `force being used to Have the rights of the
jewellery be `almost approach in Dawson and steal' defendant been
The COA rejected this argument simultaneous', can James 1977 Using force to escape disregarded?
on the basis that appropriation occur in different Whether force was used has been considered to The differing
was a continuing act locations. is left to the jury to be using force at the approaches to
This is despite it not being a Force must be used decide time of the theft so `appropriation'
continuing act in theft (Atakupu immediately before or therefore is force used between theft and
and Ibhrams) at the time of the to steal. robbery seem unfair
offence This shows that Lockley and inconsistent.
If the force is used stretched the law. There is also the risk
merely to escape after D appealed saying that of inconsistencies
the theft, there is not a he had used force to being made due to
robbery escape but the COA the role of the jury.
It is left to the jury to rejected the argument.
decide whether force
was used to steal
R v Robinson 1997 In Robinson it was held that all Robinson was no The trial judge had R v Forrester 1992
elements of theft are required proven to be misdirected the jury in confirmed the legal
for there to be a robbery. dishonest; in fact he regards to s2 (1) (a) of principle of Robinson
D was not found to be had the genuine belief the Theft Act 1968. All the elements of theft,
dishonest, therefore without a that he had the right in This led to the conviction including robbery, must
complete theft, there was not law to take the money. of robbery being unsafe be satisfied.
robbery D's conviction of This shows the D was held to have no
robbery was therefore complexity of the law in rights to the items
quashed the area himself and so could not
It has been left to the claim that he had not
court to define the legal been dishonest under s2
principles because s8 of (1) (a) of the Theft Act
the Theft Act doesn't 1968.

Other pages in this set

Page 2

Preview of page 2

Here's a taster:

Force' is not defined in the Under the Larcneny Act At first instance the trial Clouden held that force `Violence' became
R v Dawson and Theft Act 1968 1916, robbery judge misdirected the can be done indirectly. `force' which did not
James 1977 Force under the theft act is an required `violence' to jury by saying that the By applying force to the need to be
ordinary word and therefore be used to overpower `force' needed to be victim's handbag this substantial.…read more

Page 3

Preview of page 3

Here's a taster:

D's to decide = increased
burglar. entry inconsistency and
D could only be liable if
An alternative view by uncertainty.
he had entered before Smith and Griew was
being invited. preferred by the COA.
This was that negligence
with regard to entering
as a trespasser would not
suffice for a criminal
offence, such as burglary.…read more

Page 4

Preview of page 4

Here's a taster:

Seekings and For burglary, D must enter the This case is Reference is made in s9 This case is an example Seekings and Gould
`building'. Is a lorry trailer a distinguished from the
(4) to `buildings' or `part of the development of further clarified what
Gould 1986 `building', an `inhabited vehicle' earlier case of B and S
of a building'.…read more

Page 5

Preview of page 5

Here's a taster:

Laing appealed and the
shown another part of the worth stealing COA allowed it because
Judges further developed the building without the jury was misdirected
wording of the Act by applying authorisation. The jury was not
it to situations where there was directed with the
a definable area within a larger possibility that D became
space, entry into which would a trespasser when he
make the D a trespasser. This entered `part of a
was a clarification of law.…read more


No comments have yet been made

Similar Law resources:

See all Law resources »See all resources »