Robbery and Burglary
Introduction
Robbery is an offence under s8 of the Theft Act 1968 and can be loosely defined as a
theft which is aggravated by the use or threat of force. To satisfy the mens rea, it
must be proved that the defendant had the mens rea for theft and intended to use
force to steal.
Conversely, burglary is an offence under s9 of the Theft Act 1968. Section 9 provides
two different ways in which burglary can be committed. Under s9(1)(a), a person is
guilty of burglary if they enter any building or part of a building as a trespasser with
intent to steal, inflict GBH, or do unlawful damage to the building or anything in it.
Under s9(1)(b), a person is guilty of burglary if, having entered the building or part of
a building as a trespasser, they steal or attempt to steal anything in the building or
inflict or attempt to inflict GBH on any person in the building.
The Element of Theft in Robbery
In theft cases, appropriation occurs at one point in time.
This is illustrated by the case of Atakpu and Abrahams, where defendants brought
stolen cars into the UK to sell them. As they appropriated the cars in another
jurisdiction, the resulting conduct did not amount to theft.
However, in robbery, appropriation is viewed as an ongoing process. This was
confirmed in the cases of Hale and Lockley.
The element of theft in robbery can therefore be criticised on the grounds that it
contradicts the courts’ approach in theft cases.
Nevertheless, it can be argued that the principle of theft in robbery makes more
sense. This can be explained through the case of Atakpu and Abrahams. The
defendants in the case were bringing the cars into this country to sell them. Surely
this was an ongoing part of the theft. In this way, it seems absurd that in theft cases,
appropriation is viewed as occurring at one point in time.
Completed Theft
Clearly, multiple problems arise in relation to consistency between the 3 offences.
A further example can be found in the confliction between robbery and burglary,
whereby in the former, the theft has to be completed, and in the latter, the theft
does not have to be completed.
Clearly, there needs to be a uniform approach. However, the question remains as to
which approach is more appropriate.
On the one hand, it can be argued that robbery makes more sense in requiring the
theft to be completed. This is because a failure to complete the crime constitutes
only an attempt.
However, the law has some advantages in allowing conviction for uncompleted theft
under burglary. This is because the defendant still possessed the same level of
intention required for the full offence.
Introduction
Robbery is an offence under s8 of the Theft Act 1968 and can be loosely defined as a
theft which is aggravated by the use or threat of force. To satisfy the mens rea, it
must be proved that the defendant had the mens rea for theft and intended to use
force to steal.
Conversely, burglary is an offence under s9 of the Theft Act 1968. Section 9 provides
two different ways in which burglary can be committed. Under s9(1)(a), a person is
guilty of burglary if they enter any building or part of a building as a trespasser with
intent to steal, inflict GBH, or do unlawful damage to the building or anything in it.
Under s9(1)(b), a person is guilty of burglary if, having entered the building or part of
a building as a trespasser, they steal or attempt to steal anything in the building or
inflict or attempt to inflict GBH on any person in the building.
The Element of Theft in Robbery
In theft cases, appropriation occurs at one point in time.
This is illustrated by the case of Atakpu and Abrahams, where defendants brought
stolen cars into the UK to sell them. As they appropriated the cars in another
jurisdiction, the resulting conduct did not amount to theft.
However, in robbery, appropriation is viewed as an ongoing process. This was
confirmed in the cases of Hale and Lockley.
The element of theft in robbery can therefore be criticised on the grounds that it
contradicts the courts’ approach in theft cases.
Nevertheless, it can be argued that the principle of theft in robbery makes more
sense. This can be explained through the case of Atakpu and Abrahams. The
defendants in the case were bringing the cars into this country to sell them. Surely
this was an ongoing part of the theft. In this way, it seems absurd that in theft cases,
appropriation is viewed as occurring at one point in time.
Completed Theft
Clearly, multiple problems arise in relation to consistency between the 3 offences.
A further example can be found in the confliction between robbery and burglary,
whereby in the former, the theft has to be completed, and in the latter, the theft
does not have to be completed.
Clearly, there needs to be a uniform approach. However, the question remains as to
which approach is more appropriate.
On the one hand, it can be argued that robbery makes more sense in requiring the
theft to be completed. This is because a failure to complete the crime constitutes
only an attempt.
However, the law has some advantages in allowing conviction for uncompleted theft
under burglary. This is because the defendant still possessed the same level of
intention required for the full offence.
