Robbery and Burglary Cases

  • Created by: Grace
  • Created on: 14-05-14 12:11
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
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

Other cards in this set

Card 2


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.

Card 3


R v Raphael (2008)


Preview of the front of card 3

Card 4


R v Mitchell (2008)


Preview of the front of card 4

Card 5


Smith, PLummer and Haines (2011)


Preview of the front of card 5
View more cards


No comments have yet been made

Similar Law resources:

See all Law resources »See all Criminal law resources »