Other offences under the Theft Act 1968 In this lecture, we will consider the offences of: Robbery; Burglary; Blackmail

Robbery Contrary to s.8 TA 1968 Definition: D 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.” Actus reus

The requirement of theft Essential that theft took place. The offence is complete when the theft is complete. NB given the broad meaning attributed to appropriation by Gomez, D can be liable for robbery (rather than only attempted robbery) merely by taking hold of property with the intention to steal it. It is not necessary that D actually take the property, see, for example, Corcoran v Anderton (1980).

Use or threat of force on any person in order to steal Dawson (1976) - whether there has been force is a question of fact for the jury. The court rejected an argument that nudging someone could not be force. Re seeks to put in fear, it is not necessary that V is actually put in fear.

Clouden (1987) - it should be left up to the jury to decide if force is used “on any person.” Cf. the pickpocket is unlikely to be liable for robbery, only theft, as he uses stealth not force in order to appropriate the property.

Immediately before or at the time of the stealing This element of the offence raises the issue of the duration of the theft - how long does the theft continue? See Hale (1978) and Lockley (1995) and refer back to the nature of "appropriation" in theft.

Mens rea: For theft; Re force

Burglary Offence contrary to s.9 TA Definition: S.9(1)(a) - D 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) (2) The offences referred to in subsection (1) (a) above are offences of stealing anything in the building or part of a building in question, of inflicting on any person therein any grievous bodily harm, and of doing unlawful damage to the building or anything therein.”

(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.

Actus Reus Entry Brown (1985) - Entry need only be “effective”.There is no need for the whole of D’s body to be in the building. See also Ryan (1996)

As a Trespasser Trespass requires an absence of consent (either express or implied) of the owner of the building and that D knows he is trespassing or is reckless as to whether he is trespassing. See Collins (1973)

Trespass and exceeding one’s consent to enter Jones&Smith (1976) - A person enters as a trespasser if he enters knowing that he is entering in excess of the permission that has been given to him or is reckless in that regard. D had a general permission to enter the house but did not have permission to enter in order to steal the TVs. How might this principle apply to shops i.e. if you enter a shop intending to steal is it burglary on entry?

Building/part of a building “Building” covers dwellings, shops, factories, offices, sheds, greenhouses, and barns whether or not inhabited, AND due to use of the words “inhabited vehicle or vessel” in s.9(4), it also includes caravans, houseboats, and campervans whilst they are being used as a home, whether or not the occupant is there at the time.

Concerning part of a building, see Walkington (1979).

Mens Rea Ulterior intent This can be conditional (AG's Refs (No's 1 and 2 of 1979) - it it is sufficient that D intends to steal only if there is anything worth taking or to injure anyone or damage anything that happens to be inside.

Blackmail The offence is contrary to s.21 TA Definition - with view to gain for himself or another or with intent to cause loss to another, D makes any unwarranted demand with menaces.

Actus Reus Demand Menaces

S.21(2) - the nature of the act or omission demanded is immaterial. It is also immaterial whether the menaces relate to action to be taken by the person making the demand.

Demand Relevant caselaw: Harry (1974) Collister v Warhurst (1955)

Menaces covers not only threats of violence but anything detrimental or unpleasant, see Thorne v Motor Trade Association (1937). Clear (1968) test: “ The mind of an ordinary person of normal stability and courage might be influenced or made apprehensive so as to accede unwillingly to the demand. ”

Garwood (1987) What if V is not affected by the threats but the ordinary person of normal stability would have been? ANS: Still menaces. What if V is affected by the threats as, e.g. he is exceptionally timorous, but the ordinary person would not? ANS: There would still be menaces provided D is aware of the likely effect of his actions on V.

Mens Rea Unwarranted demand View to Gain or Intent to Cause Loss

Unwarranted demand Unwarranted defined in s.21: A demand is unwarranted unless the person making it does so in the belief - (a) that he has reasonable grounds for making the demand; and (b) that the use of the menaces is a proper means of reinforcing the demand.

Subjective test - might help a D with low moral standards but, D must believe that the menaces are a proper means of reinforcing his demand. If he believes his actions are justified but knows they are unlawful, he cannot believe them to be proper (Harvey (1980)).

View to gain/cause loss Blackmail is essentially concerned with the protection of economic interests.

Lawrence and Pomroy (1971) - there may be a view to gain even where D is seeking to recover that to which he is legally entitled.