Please enable JavaScript.

Coggle requires JavaScript to display documents.

Robbery/Burglary - Coggle Diagram

- - - - R v Robinson all elements of theft must be satisfied
    - - R v Dawson and James- force does not require violence
      - R v Clouden- force can be applied through property e.g. grabbing a bag from her hand (force against the property causes force against the person holding it)
      - P & Others v DPP- Clouden principle cannot be applied where indirect contact is very minimal and there is no evidence of resistance from V (cigarette from hand)
      - R v DPP- no need for them to feel fear emotion from the force they think will be used against them
      - R v Taylor- D can still be liable even when V does not think they will be subjected to force, if D seeks to instill that fear in them
    - - The threat or use of force can by on any person- it does not have to be directed towards the person from whom the property is stolen, but the person whom the threat is directed at must fear they will be subjected to force then and there (this may not be the victim who is threatened, can be third party)
      - force cannot be threatened on property (including pets)
    - - R v Hale- the appropriation can be a continuing act, for jury to decide
  - - - R v Hale- continuing act may be useful when force/intention to use force is only after started stealing
      - R v Vinall- where an intention to permanently deprive is formed at a later point than the force, there would not have been a theft at the time force was used and therefore no robbery conviction
- - - - D enters
        
        R v Ryan- entry occurs when any part of the body has entered the building/part of the building
      - building/part of
        
        S9(4) building includes an inhabited vehicle or vessel, whether the person living there is present at the time or not (definition for S9(1) and 9(2))
        
        Stevens v Gourley- building must be a structure of considerable size and intended to be permanent or at least endure for a considerable amount of time
        
        B and S v Leathley- a freezer container fitted for 2 years and 25 feet long was a building
        
        Norfolk Constabulary v Seekings & Gould- two containers on wheels were not buildings even though electricity was laid on- the only way a burglary would be committed is if they were inhabited
        
        R v Walkington- behind the tills counted as part of the building as D knew he wasn’t supposed to be there
      - trespasser (means no consent)
        
        R v Collins- building/part of is in possession of another who does not consent to the entry
        
        Must enter building/part of as a trespasser, cannot be convicted of burglary if they later become one
        
        R v Jones & Smith- entering his dad’s house (a place he had general permission) can be trespassing if when entering, you know you are entering in excess of permission that was given to you
    - - knowing/reckless to entry as a trespasser
      - at time of entry D intended one of s9(2) offences
        
        AG Ref No 1 & 2 1979- conditional intent counts as intent
  - - - D enters (Ryan)
      - Building/part of (S9(4)
      - as a trespasser
      - knowing/reckless to trespass
      - D steals/attempts to steal/commits GBH/attempts GBH
        
        If stealing a full theft is required, if GBH, S18 or 20 will suffice (R v Jenkins shows as GBH ‘offence’ was not used, GBH does not need mens rea, just actus reus)