Case
robbery, burglary and blackmail
- Course
- Institution
my notes for end of year exams
[Show more]
Seller
Follow
yangjensherpa
Content preview
Criminal law robbery, burglary and blackmailROBBERY IS THEFT WITH USE OF FORCE OR THREAT OF FORCE IMMEDIATELY BEFORE OR
AT THE TIME OF STEALING WITH THE INTENTION TO STEAL UNDER S8 THEFT ACT 1968.
‘MUST BE COMPLETED THEFT FIRST’
ROBINSON CASE WHERE D BELIEVED HE IS OWED £7 BY A PERSON, WENT TO THEIR
HOUSE, ARGUED W PERSON HUSBAND WHO DROPS £5 WHICH D TAKES. THERE IS NO
ROBBERY AS THERE IS NO COMPLETE THEFT. D HAD HONEST BELIEF HE WAS OWED
MONEY S2(A) SO THERE IS MR FOR THEFT INCOMPLETE.
‘USE OF FORCE’
DAWSON AND JAMES WHERE D NUDGED THE V SO THE OTHER D COULD TAKE HIS
WALLET. NUDGING IS ENOUGH TO AMOUNT TO FORCE BUT NOT SLIGHTLY TOUCHING.
P V DPP WHERE D SNATCHES CIGARETTE FROM V HAND BUT HE DID NOT TOUCH V AT ALL
SO WAS NOT ROBBERY.
‘INTENTION TO STEAL’
CORCORAN V ANDERTON WHERE THE D TUGGING ON V BAG BUT HANDBAG FELL AND HE
LEFT AS V WAS SCREAMING AND ATTRACTING ATTENTION. STILL ROBBERY AS D HAD
USED FORCE AND INTENTION TO STEAL EVEN IF NOT SUCCEEDED IN STEALING.
CLOUDEN CASE WHERE WOMAN WAS TOLD TO GIVE HER BAG AND SHE HANDED IT OVER
TO D BUT USE OF FORCE ON PROPERTY STILL SUFFICIENT TO FORCE ON WOMAN SO
ROBBERY(?)
● THE FORCE DOES NOT NECESSARILY HAVE TO BE AGAINST THE V IT CAN BE
AGAINST A 3RD PARTY BUT NOT A PROPERTY.
FORRESTER CASE WHERE D TEMPORARILY TOOK SOMETHING, HELD ONTO IT FOR SO
LONG IT BECAME INTENTION TO PERMANENTLY STEAL, UP TO JURY TO DECIDE. SO
TEMPORARY APPROPRIATION STILL = THEFT.
‘IMMEDIATELY BEFORE OR AT TIME OF STEALING’
HALE CASE WHERE THE D BROKE INTO V HOUSE, COVERED THE V MOUTH, TOOK THE
JEWELLERY BOX THEN TIED HER UP AND LEFT THE HOUSE. APPROPRIATION OF THE
JEWELLERY WAS A CONTINUING ACT SO TYING V UP BEFORE LEAVING HOUSE WAS FORCE
IMMEDIATELY BEFORE THEY LEFT THE HOUSE WITH THE BOX.
● BUT COULD ARGUE THAT THEFT ALREADY TOOK PLACE ONCE REMOVING BOX
FROM THE PLACE IT WAS AS THEY ASSUMED THE RIGHTS OF THE OWNER.
BURGLARY IS THEFT + TRESPASSING INTO ANY BUILDING UNDER S9 OF THEFT ACT 1968.
TWO BURGLARY OFFENCES:
S9 (1) (A) TRESSPASSER ENTER A BUILDING OR PART OF OF BUILDING HAS INTENTION TO
COMMIT THEFT, GBH OR CRIMINAL DAMAGE
S9 (1) (B) TRESSPASSER WHO IS ALREADY IN THE BUILDING COMMITS/ATTEMPTS THEFT
OR GBH
‘WHOLE BODY DOES NOT HAVE TO ENTER’
The benefits of buying summaries with Stuvia:
Guaranteed quality through customer reviews
Stuvia customers have reviewed more than 700,000 summaries. This how you know that you are buying the best documents.
Quick and easy check-out
You can quickly pay through credit card or Stuvia-credit for the summaries. There is no membership needed.
Focus on what matters
Your fellow students write the study notes themselves, which is why the documents are always reliable and up-to-date. This ensures you quickly get to the core!
Frequently asked questions
What do I get when I buy this document?
You get a PDF, available immediately after your purchase. The purchased document is accessible anytime, anywhere and indefinitely through your profile.
Satisfaction guarantee: how does it work?
Our satisfaction guarantee ensures that you always find a study document that suits you well. You fill out a form, and our customer service team takes care of the rest.
Who am I buying these notes from?
Stuvia is a marketplace, so you are not buying this document from us, but from seller yangjensherpa. Stuvia facilitates payment to the seller.
Will I be stuck with a subscription?
No, you only buy these notes for $8.95. You're not tied to anything after your purchase.
Can Stuvia be trusted?
4.6 stars on Google & Trustpilot (+1000 reviews)
75632 documents were sold in the last 30 days
Founded in 2010, the go-to place to buy study notes for 14 years now