Help with criminal law question

Could someone please outline liabilities

Lazlo and Simon set out to steal from a mobile phone high-street store. They plan to
take the most expensive mobile phones without being seen and sell them on eBay
afterwards. They also agree to take knives to scare away anyone who might disturb
them. Lazlo knows that Simon stabbed a security guard last year in a burglary that
went wrong, but Simon assures him that nothing like this will happen this time.
The day before the date they have chosen to execute their plan, Lazlo asks Roberta
to drive them to the store, but Roberta refuses. Lazlo knows that Roberta is an illegal
immigrant liable to prosecution and deportation from the UK. He threatens to report
her to the police. Lazlo also tells her that he will ‘beat her up’, should she refuse to
help out. Roberta is pregnant and she is worried that any assault may cause a
miscarriage. Given the circumstances, she feels she has no choice but to agree to
drive Lazlo and Simon in her van the next day.
Inside the shop, as Lazlo and Simon each pick up a phone on the shelf, Geoffrey, the
security guard, approaches them. Simon is scared and he stabs Geoffrey in the chest.
Geoffrey dies almost instantly. Leaving the phones behind, Lazlo and Simon run out
of the shop.
Advise Lazlo, Simon and Roberta on their liability, if any, for criminal offences –
including the relevance of any criminal defences.

Errmm, i could be wrong but...

Simon could be guilty of murder. He killed Geoffrey. I think even though he is scared, this still satisfies the test for direct intention. I don't think it's recklessness, even though some could potentially argue this. I don't think it can be pleaded down to manslaughter.

Simon and Lazio, attempted theft/burglary that was planned? could or could not be a crime. Dishonestly, appropriating ,property,belonging to another, with the intention to permanently deprive the shop of the phones. Some may say attempted robbery because they 'intended' to scare anyone who would cause problems. This could be construed as using force to affect the theft, although ,this did not happen. Some could also say burglary because of their state of mind, entering a building or part of a building as a trespasser , with the intent to steal , s9 Theft Act?

Simon and Lazio. Carrying knives in a public place is an offence, they are offensive weapons per se. Also , they do not have a reasonable excuse or lawful authority to have them. There is an act for this. maybe Criminal Justice Act?

Simon . Blackmail and maybe Assault? Forcing Roberta to participate in the crime against her will. Also threatening harm i.e apprehension of immediate unlawful force?

Roberta , aiding the theft/burglary? There was no theft/burglary but she knowingly helped people she knew were planning to steal. She was under duress though.Duress of circumstances perhaps?

This is very rough but good luck

Errmm, i could be wrong but...

Simon could be guilty of murder. He killed Geoffrey. I think even though he is scared, this still satisfies the test for direct intention. I don't think it's recklessness, even though some could potentially argue this. I don't think it can be pleaded down to manslaughter.

Simon and Lazio, attempted theft/burglary that was planned? could or could not be a crime. Dishonestly, appropriating ,property,belonging to another, with the intention to permanently deprive the shop of the phones. Some may say attempted robbery because they 'intended' to scare anyone who would cause problems. This could be construed as using force to affect the theft, although ,this did not happen. Some could also say burglary because of their state of mind, entering a building or part of a building as a trespasser , with the intent to steal , s9 Theft Act?

Simon and Lazio. Carrying knives in a public place is an offence, they are offensive weapons per se. Also , they do not have a reasonable excuse or lawful authority to have them. There is an act for this. maybe Criminal Justice Act?

Simon . Blackmail and maybe Assault? Forcing Roberta to participate in the crime against her will. Also threatening harm i.e apprehension of immediate unlawful force?

It's not really right.


S is guilty of murder. He meets all the elements of murder, and the offence is complete. For murder, you only require the mens rea to commit GBH - which he has as he has stabbed a guard. There is no mention of his wider mental state and he has also previously done something similar (although not fully described in the rubric).

Manslaughter is not a consideration. S is neither negligent, nor of diminished mental state.




There cannot be burglary as they aren't entering the shop as trespassers, and there is nothing to suggest that they are in any restricted area.

They have already appropriated the phones when S stabs the guard. Strictly this means that the theft is complete and robbery doesn't occur, but from Hale, courts give a wider interpretation to theft it would probably be considered a robbery complete.


There's no description of the knives, but Ofweaps is s.1 Prevention of Crime Act 1953. This is not usually in criminal law syllabus.



There's no blackmail as the offence fails on having to make a material gain or loss. This must be property, not services.

Assault is difficult. The violence is not going to be immediate, and is also conditional. Maybe.

Roberta , aiding the theft/burglary? There was no theft/burglary but she knowingly helped people she knew were planning to steal. She was under duress though.Duress of circumstances perhaps?

This is very rough but good luck

Thank you so much!

for 1.
What about R v Jones and Smith for the purposes of Burglary ? Lazio and Simon , as members of the public , they had permission to enter the shop , however exceeded the permission by stealing/attempting to steal and became trespassers.

for 2.
Does this not make it an inchoate offence.? I understand that they had an intention to permanently deprive the shop of the phones, however ,strictly speaking ,they didn't actually do it. i.e more than preparatory but not actually complete. E,g if the guard did not die , would this not be attempted murder, provided that the mens rea elements are met?

for 3.
Yeah , i understand the three inch rule for blade weapons for Simon and Lazio. What about them being construed offensive weapons as per s1(1) PCA 1953 because we do not know the size of the blades. Any item can be classed as an offensive weapons if they are used with the appropriate intention s.1(4)?

for 4.Hasn't Simon committed Affray? s.3(1)&(5) Public Order Act 1986

By your rationale, all shoplifters would be burglars, which they aren't.

it is our view that a person is a trespasser for the purpose of section 9 (1) (b) of the Theft Act 1968 if he enters premises of another knowing that he is entering in excess of the permission that has been given to him, or being reckless as to whether he is entering in excess of the permission that has been given to him to enter. Provided the facts are known to the accused which enable him to realise that he is acting in excess of the permission given or that he is acting recklessly as to whether he exceeds that permission, then that is sufficient for the jury to decide that he is in fact a trespasser.

Sort of backwards to decide that shoplifters aren't guilty of burglary and use that as a basis for interpreting the Theft Act.

In the case cited by tjblonks (Smith and Jones [1976] 1 WLR 672), the Court said:



Can you explain why that would not apply to render someone entering a shop with the intention to steal from it guilty of burglary?

Obviously in reality it's hard to see how that intent could ever be proved at that time, but OP is considering this in an academic context.

He would have permission to be in the shop, presumably.

A person who has general permission to enter particular premises may nevertheless be a trespasser thereon if he enters the same knowing that he is acting in excess of such general permission or being reckless as to whether he is so acting. The appellants were convicted of burglary, having entered a bungalow owned by the father of one of them and stealing therein two television sets. It was contended inter alia that a person having general permission to enter premises, such as the son had, could not be "a trespasser" for the purposes of the Theft Act 1968, s. 9 (1).

Held, dismissing the appeals, that the permission given had been exceeded and that the jury had been entitled to find that the appellants were trespassers. ( Hillen v ICI (Alkali) Ltd [1936] A.C. 65, [1935] 7 WLUK 7 applied and R. v Collins (Stephen William George) [1973] Q.B. 100, [1972] 5 WLUK 24 applied).

Guess I should have pasted the headnote of the case I cited, although honestly I would have thought the language of entering 'in excess of the permission that has been given to him' cleared up this particular point.

If you're acting in excess of that permission, might mean walking into a back room and taking stock. Or being invited to a front room, and going upstairs when the old man goes for a whizz, and stealing a couple of his tellies.

The facts of the case you cited would be illuminating. Not saying you're wrong -- don't give a toss about crim -- just saying the facts of that particular case need to be explored.