Robbery and Burglary Cases

Robinson (1977)

D must satisfy all elements of theft in order for there to be a robbery. Under s2(1) TA D was not dishonest as he believed he was entitled to money so there was no theft and therefore no robbery

1 of 27

Corocran v Anderton (1980)

when the theft is complete and force is used in order to steal there has been a robbery. D hit a woman in the back and grabbed her bag. the moment he grabbed the bag the theft was complete and force used so robbery.

2 of 27

R v Raphael (2008)

D forcibly took V's car and then offered to sell it back for £500. this was intention to permanently deprive as D had a clear intention to dispose of the car regardless of the owners rights.

3 of 27

R v Mitchell (2008)

D took V's car to escape a police chase he then abandoned car. no robbery as no intention to permanently deprive

4 of 27

Smith, PLummer and Haines (2011)

D used force to steal heroin from V. Courts decided it is possible to rob illegal property

5 of 27

Dawson and James (1976)

D pushed V so he lost his balance and D2 could take his wallet. LP: courts said force is ordinary word and for the jury to decide if force was used. force in robbery doesn't have to be substantial

6 of 27

Clouden (1987)

D wrenched a shopping bag from V's hands. LP: force can be indirect it can be against V's property as well as V themselves.

7 of 27

R v Bentham (2005)

D threatened V with a 'gun' which was actually his fingers in his jacket. LP: any threat of force is enough, doesn't matter if the threat is not real.

8 of 27

B and R v DPP (2007)

D's robbed a schoolboy. V said he did not fear serious violence and no violence was used against him. LP: if D seeks to put V in fear of force it doesn't matter that V doesn't actually fear force.

9 of 27

Hale (1979)

D's broke in to V's house 1 went upstairs to steal jewellery while other tied V up and covered her mouth. LP: appropriation in robbery is continuous. threats and theft can occur in diff places but simultaneously. force can't be used to escape.

10 of 27

Lockley (1995)

D used force to steal beer from a shop. LP: followed Hale appropriation is continuous act. force shouldn't be used to escape - wide approach to this.

11 of 27

Atakpu and Abrahams (1994)

Theft case: D's stole a car in germany and couldn't be guilty in UK as appropriation is not continuous. LP: conflicts with Robbery- Hale and Lockley appropriation continuous act.

12 of 27

Collins (1972)

D looked in window while V was sleeping. V invited D in thinking it was her BF. they had sex and she realise fit wasn't her BF.LP: entry must be effective and substantial for a burglary. also defined trespasser

13 of 27

Brown 1985

D half in half out a shop looking to steal. said was not substantial entry as only half in. LP: changed test: entry only has to be effective. not substantial

14 of 27

Ryan 1996

D trapped by neck and one arm in window. could not steal. LP: courts scrapped collins test. said it was for jury to decide if D entered the building or not. it does not have to be effective or substantial.

15 of 27

Stevens and Gourley 1859

Building must be: of of reasonable size and intended to be fairly permanent

16 of 27

B and S Leathly 1979

D stole meat from a freezer used as storage on a farm. LP: building as was on railway sleepers so gives it some degree of permanence.

17 of 27

Norfolk Constabulary v Seekings and Gould 1986

D's tried to steal from 2 lorries used as storage by a supermarket. LP: not a building as still on wheels- the character of the structure had not changed. building must have some degree of permanence- wheels meant this was not the case.

18 of 27

R v Walkington 1979

D went behind counter in a shop to steal from till. nothing of value in till so didn't steal. LP: still part of a building as even though no walls or partitions D would have known this area was not for general public- therefore part of a building

19 of 27

R v Laing 1995

D hid in stock area of store, was discovered when store closed. LP: part of a building can be an area where entry is clearly denied even though permission to enter the building has been granted.

20 of 27

Smith and Jones 1976

D stole 2 TVs from his parents house where he was allowed to be. LP: even though D had general permission to enter, stealing the TV's meant he went beyond the permission granted to him.

21 of 27

Barker 1983 (AUSTRALIAN)

D had neighbours key for emergencies but used it to steal. LP: followed Smith and Jones: D went beyond the permission granted to enter V's house so was a trespasser

22 of 27

Forrester 1992

V held D's deposit on a flat after D had left D stole items from Vs house to bargain for it back, or to sell to get the money back. LP: D was dishonest and had robbed as he knew he was not entitled to them items.

23 of 27

Bennet 2007

D must have intention before he enters the building for 9(1)(a) it cannot be after he enters

24 of 27

AGs Ref 1 of 1979 (1979)

conditional intent is sufficient for burglary under 9(1)(a) even if there is nothing worth stealing and nothing is stolen

25 of 27

Easom

Theft case: conditional intent is not enough for theft, the D must actually take something to be guilty. CONFLICTS WITH AG'S REF.

26 of 27

Sticklen 2013

D's sentence was lowered after judge wrongly directed jury that he had burgled a dwelling house, as the house was under innovation and no one was actually living there.

27 of 27

Get Revising

Robbery and Burglary Cases

Other cards in this set

Card 2

Front

Back

Card 3

Front

Back

Card 4

Front

Back

Card 5

Front

Back

Comments

Similar Law resources:

Other cards in this set

Card 2

Front

Back

Card 3

Front

Back

Card 4

Front

Back

Card 5

Front

Back

Comments

Related discussions on The Student Room

Similar Law resources: