‘it is not merely that D usurps V’s property right, but how she does so’ [1]
Robbery
Statistics:
In 2013-14, robbery only accounted for 3% of all property crime.
20% of robberies involve the use of a sharp instrument, most commonly a knife.
44% of all offences were recorded in London.
Most robberies are committed by men.
Around 1000 of convicted offenders per year are minors.
The age of offender is increasing (Aged 25+ were 20% in 2006 and 50% in 2018).
Cash is the most typically stolen item, along with phones.
Sentencing [2]:
Robbery is triable in Crown Court with a jury only.
Categories:
Category 1 (Serious Physical and/or Psychological Harm to V): 8 Years
Category 2 (Intermediate Cases): 5 Years
Category 3 (No / Minimal Physical and/or Psychological Harm to V): 4 Years
Culpability:
High Culpability:
Use of weapon.
Production of bladed article or firearm or imitation firearm to threaten violence.
Use of significant force.
Motivated by hostility to racial group etc.
Low Culpability:
Coercion, intimidation or exploitation.
Threat or minimal force.
Mental disability or learning disability of V.
Theft Act 1968:
s8(1) – ‘A person is guilty of robbery if –
he steals, and
immediately before or at the time of doing so, and in order to do so,
he uses force on any person or puts or seeks to put any person in fear of being then and there subjected to force.’
There must be all the elements of a theft for there to have been a robbery to satisfy the requirement for stealing.
In Mitchell, D took V’s car by force, but later abandoned it. It was held that there was no robbery as D only intended to temporarily deprive V of his property. Morally questionable judgement.
In Monaghan, V was ‘jostled’ as the theft took place. Only theft was charged due to a lack of force.
In P v DPP, D was not guilty of robbery when they snatched a cigarette from V’s mouth. The lack of direct physical contact was insufficient ‘force’ for the purposes of the act as there was no contact between D and V, so D’s actions were simply theft.
Criticisms / Reform [3]:
There are potential issues regarding fair labelling - ‘force’ may be too wide.
Burglary:
Statistics:
As of 2017, around 2% of households had been victims of a burglary.
Households are now 4 times less likely to be victims than in 1995.
70% enter through a door: 30% enter through window.
Purses, wallets and money are the most typically stolen items.
70% of burglaries take place during the week. 40% daytime: 60% evening / night.
50% of the time there is someone in the property.
50% offender known to victim: 50% offender a stranger.
Sentencing [4]:
A judge may exceed the recommended sentence, depending on the given facts.
Categories:
Category 1 (Greater Harm and Higher Culpability): 3 Years
Category 2 (Greater Harm and Lower Culpability or Lesser Harm and Higher Culpability): 1 year custody high level community order.
Category 3 (Lesser Harm and Lower Culpability): High level community order.
Harm:
A higher level of harm includes cases where V is home, violence is used, trauma caused to the victim or the property is ransacked.
Culpability:
A higher level of harm includes cases of deliberate targeting, planning, use of equipment or gang-related events.
Theft Act 1968:
s9(1) - A person is guilty of burglary if - (a or b)
s9(1)(a) - he enters any building or part of a building as a trespasser and with intent to commit any such offence as is mentioned in subsection (2) below; or
s9(2) – Theft; GBH; Criminal Damage.
s9(1)(b) - having entered any building or part of a building as a trespasser he steals or attempts to steal anything in the building or that part of it or inflicts or attempts to inflict on any person therein any grievous bodily harm.
In Sang, D used a fishing rod to extract car keys through a letter box. The court held that ‘entry’ could include the use of instruments.
In Collins, D climbed up to V’s window. V saw D and welcomed him in, mistaking D for her boyfriend. Court held that in s9(1)(a), the mens rea for burglary can be intention or recklessness. D’s belief, however unreasonable, in the right to enter means burglary was not committed.
In Jones and Smith, D entered their father’s house with permission, but with the intention to steal. The court held that entry by fraud is entry as a trespasser, so they did not have the father’s permission in the circumstances. D was convicted of burglary.
In Walkington, W went behind an unoccupied counter in a shop and opened the cash till. On seeing that it was empty, he left but was arrested by store security. W admitted that he would’ve taken the money had it been there. W was convicted of burglary because they entered part of a building with the intention to steal and the fact that there was nothing to take did not remove this intention.
In Barker, V had asked B to watch their house while they were away. V told B the location of a spare key. B entered with the intention to steal. B's conviction was upheld – a person already in the building may become a trespasser if they have the intention to steal.
‘If a person enters for a purpose outside the scope of his authority, then he stands in no better position than a person who enters with no authority at all’
Criticisms / Reform [5]:
Boundaries of what is considered burglary are pushed wider than necessary or appropriate under the current law. There is no suspicion, fear or threat when someone who is generally permitted to enter does indeed enter, albeit by fraud / false pretences.
s9(1)(a) is an inchoate offence. The defendant does not have to actually steal anything, but merely enter with the intention of stealing so the offence goes beyond criminalising the substantive crime.
Max Sentence:
s9(3)(a) – Dwelling (House): 14 years
s9(3)(b) – Otherwise: 10 years
Burglaries of dwellings carry a higher sentence due to psychological effects on the victim(s).
Resources:
References:
[1] Simester and Sullivan, n 14, 194; Green, n 4, ch 17 [2] Sentencing Council, Guidelines: Robbery [3] Jeremy Horder, ‘Property Offences’ in Ashworth’s Principles of Criminal Law (9th edn, Oxford University Press 2019) [4] Sentencing Council, Guidelines: Burglary [5] Jeremy Horder, ‘Property Offences’ in Ashworth’s Principles of Criminal Law (9th edn, Oxford University Press 2019)
Cases Mentioned:
R v Mitchell [2008] EWCA Crim 850
R v Monaghan (2000) 1 CR App R(S) 6 0
P v Director of Public Prosecutions [2012] EWHC 1657 (admin)
R v Sang [2003] EWCA Crim 2411
R v Collins [1973] QB 100
R v Jones and Smith [1976] 3 All ER 54
R v Walkington (Terence John) [1979] 1 WLR 1169; (1979) 68 Cr App R 427
Barker v R (1983) 7 ALJR 426
Comments