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.
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 eleanortrend. Stuvia facilitates payment to the seller.
Will I be stuck with a subscription?
No, you only buy these notes for $5.16. You're not tied to anything after your purchase.