Property Offences

1. Burglary under s…defined…

s 12,

a. enters any building or part of a building as a trespasser with intent to commit an arrestable offence or

b. having entered a building or part of a building as a trespasser commits or attempts to commit any such offence

2. Burglary - building defined

Stevens v Gourley [1859] as “a structure of considerable size and intended to be permanent or at least to endure for a considerable time”

3. Actus Reus - Entry - define + 2 cases

1. Entry of a building, or part thereof, or inhabited vehicle, vessel or structure, as a trespasser, whether the dweller is present or not.

2. Once the defendant has inserted any part of his body no matter how small, into a building, he will be deemed to have entered the building.

4. Entry Case 1 - effective entry.

R v Brown [1985] - by inserting only half his body through a broken window was sufficient. This was held to be an

5. Entry Case 2 - entry need not be effective

R v Ryan [1996] – entry need not be effective, provided that entry has taken place. Insertion of any part of the body, no matter how small, was entry for the purpose of burglary.

6. Trespass definition

enters another person’s property without the consent/permission of that person.

7. Trespass case 1 - televisions stolen

R v Jones and Smith [1976] – the defendants entered the house of Smith’s father and stole 2 televisions. Smith had permission to enter the house, he did not have permission to remove anything from the house. Held liable for burglary as the owner’s consent had been exceeded.

8. Trespass case 2 - not necessary for the prosecution to always adduce evidence from the owner of the premises that they did not permit entry.

DPP v Connors [2015] - Evidence of Garda + demeanour of accused + conflict in the explanation offered by accused of their presence = sufficient.

9. Mens Rea Burglary

Subjective test: whether the accused knew he had permission to enter or was reckless as to whether he had permission to enter. If you received consent due to duress you are still trespassing as that is not true consent.

10. Mens Rea - Burglary - case 1

R v Ryan [1996] - defendant was found guilty of burglary when he was caught with his head and one arm through the window of a property that was not his.

11. Aggravated Burglary s…defined…

s 13 Criminal Justice Act (Theft and Fraud) Offences Act 2001 - a person is guilty of the offence if he commits any burglary and at that same time has with him any firearm, imitation firearm, any weapon of offence or any explosive.

12. Aggravated Burglary - Actus Reus - Case 1

R v Kelly [1992]- defendant was criminally liable for aggravated burglary as he had a screwdriver with which he used to enter the house and later assault the occupier.

13. Aggravated Burglary - Actus Reus - Case 2

R v Murphy [1971] - firearm must be “with” the accused. The accused cannot escape liability if they temporarily lay down their weapon.

14. Aggravated Burglary - Actus Reus - Case 3

In R v Klass [1998], - definition of aggravated burglary is strictly construed and a getaway car with a weapon is not aggravated burglary as those entering the premises had no control over this at any time within the house.

15. Aggravated Burglary - Mens Rea

knowledge or recklessness as to the accused’s status as a trespasser, and there must be an intent to commit an arrestable offence.

16. Aggravated Burglary - Mens rea - case 2 - defendant climbed a ladder, fully naked, into a young woman’s bedroom, with the intention to have sex with her. The defendant was convicted of burglary with intent to rape.

R v Collins [1972], sufficient to prove intention to trespass or subjective recklessness as to the fact that permission to enter was not forthcoming.

17. Aggravated burglary - mens rea - case 3 - forget

R v McCalla [1988], if the accused forgets that they are in possession of the article, this does not constitute a defence. Possession “does not come and go as memory revives or fades.”

18. Aggravated burglary - mens rea - case 3 - use of weapon

R v Stones - not necessary for the prosecution to prove that the accused intended to use the weapon.

19. Robbery..s…defined…

s 14, Criminal Justice (Theft and Fraud Offences) Act 2001 provides that a person is guilty of robbery if he steals and immediately before or at the time, uses force on any person or seeks to put any person in fear of being then and there subjected to force.

20. Robbery - Actus Reus - appropriation

s 4(5) of the Act defines appropriation as occurring when someone usurps or interferes with the proprietary rights of the owner.

People v Sweeney [2014] the defendant sold a stolen van to an innocent party. He was found guilty of theft as he had taken total control away from the van's owner with no intention of returning it.

21. Robbery - property definition

s 2(1) defines property broadly, as, ‘money and all other property, real or personal, including things in action and other intangible property.’

22. Robbery - owner - definition

s 2(4)(a) defines an owner as a ‘person who has possession or total control of property or has any proprietary right or interest.’

Minister for Posts and Telegraphs v Campbell [1966] states that a person enjoys actual control if he can personally exercise physical control over it. He enjoys constructive control if it is in the actual possession of some other person over whom he has control so that it would be available to him if he wanted it.

22. Robbery - consent - definition

s 4(2), the prosecution must prove that the owner did not consent to the appropriation of his property.

Valentine v DPP [2007], the fact that the accused walked past all points of payment and was apprehended by a security guard when he did not pay was sufficient evidence that the appellant took property without consent.

s 4(4) states that a person does not appropriate property without consent if they reasonably believe that they had the owner’s consent.

24. Robbery - use of force - case 1

R v Dawson and James [1977] held that the force used did not have to be violent, provided that it is substantial in nature.

25. Robbery - use of force - case 2

In DPP v Mangan [1995], it was held that the force need not be directed against the victim personally, the important factor is that the fear was induced in the victim. It qualified as force as it assisted the act of stealing by putting the victims in fear.

26. Robbery - use of force - case 3

R v Hale [1979] notes that robbery could be a continuing action, beginning with theft and ending with force. The force or threat of, must have been used in order to facilitate the theft.

27. Robbery - mens rea definition

dishonest appropriation of property with the intention of depriving the owner and the mens rea regarding threats or force.

28. Robbery - mens rea - dishonesty

s 2(1) dishonesty as without a claim of right made in good faith.

DPP v O’Loughlin [1979], a farmer took machinery belonging to a neighbour to offset money he believed was owed to him from a loan. He honestly believed that he was entitled to do, so ’even though his claim to be so entitled was not well in law or in fact.’ Charges were quashed.

29. Robbery - mens rea - depriving

s 4(5), depriving an owner can be temporary or permanent.

R v Velumyl [1989], the defendant took money from his employer’s safe claiming he intended to repay it. It was held that he had not intended to return the exact notes and was convicted of theft.