Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
Turn on thread page Beta
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
    Hey there I wanted help regarding burglary, as this forum is my only hope. My lecturer is not emailing bAck.
    In relation to s.9(1)(a);

    9 Burglary.(1)A person is guilty of burglary if—(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(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.

    The bit I am confused on is when my lecturer told me to consider the mens rea and actus reus for attempted CD, theft or GBH when no crime is committed but merely attempted and failed to succeed.

    Can someone help me I know what the actus reus is for actual CD, theft and GBH but I am completely lost on when it turns in to a attempt. Also will I have to apply the criminal attempt act?

    I just want to know how I would write it down. Can you guys split it up for me the actus reus element and the mens rea?


    Thank you!
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Highfiveyou)
    ---

    In the case where the crime is not completed, you will obviously apply the Criminal Attempts Act 1981 - s1 of which says:
    If, with intent to commit an offence to which this section applies, a person does an act which is more than merely preparatory to the commission of the offence, he is guilty of attempting to commit the offence.

    The AR here is 'does an act which is more than merely preparatory" and the MR "is intent to commit the offence". Since Pace and Rogers 2014, intent implies than one must be intending to commit ALL elements of the substantive offence, i.e. conduct, circumstance and consequence (look Ashworth and Horder, Principles of Criminal Law (OUP 2013), p. 459 for a basic understanding of this).

    What constitutes 'more than merely preparatory' is a very confusing area (i.e. the actus reus).

    In these cases, it was NOT more than merely preparatory:
    Campbell [1990]: D is about to enter a post office carrying an imitation gun and a threatening note
    Geddes [1996]: D hides inside a school lavatory in possession of a knife, rope and binding tape
    Gullefer [1990]: D disrupts a dog race to have the race declared void so that his stake is refunded

    In these cases, it was:
    Boyle and Boyle (1987): Ds picked lock, but were interrupted right afterwards - convicted of attempted burglary.
    Jones [1990]: D points loaded gun at V
    Tosti [1997]: D bends down to examine the padlock, outside the building he plans to burgle - guilty


    Essentially, it looks like the courts have been following the 'last act' approach more than anything, in that one is guilty provided he has actually started the substantive offence.

    For burglary, the AR is entry to a building as a trespasser (no need for substantial entry - R v Brown, R v Ryan), and the MR is intending to either steal, inflict GBH or do unlawful damage.

    For attempted burglary, therefore, one would probably need to try to pick up the lock of the door, intending to commit the full substantive offence, i.e by stealing, inflicting GBH or doing unlawful damage. Nothing short of that will suffice, though do bear in mind that the law here is fragile and nothing is set in stone (as the cases show).
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
    Can you specifically break down the mens rea and actus reus for attempted theft, cd and GBH please.

    Also I don't get how smith and hogan applies.

    Thank you!
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    Wow law sounds so complicated and dull
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Highfiveyou)
    Can you specifically break down the mens rea and actus reus for attempted theft, cd and GBH please.

    Also I don't get how smith and hogan applies.

    Thank you!
    The MR is the same - the difference is that the defendant did not actually carry out the AR of the offence, but instead took steps which were more than 'merely preparatory'.

    Essentially, someone is intending to commit the full offence (MR), but does not actually get to do so for whatever reason. If the steps they took were more than merely preparatory (i.e breaking the lock, see cases above), then they are guilty (having committed the AR of the offence). If the steps they took were not more than merely preparatory, there is not AR and so no inchoate offence.

    Smith and Hogan? As in the book?

    [PS: Ensure that you know which crimes can actually be committed -not all are. Also, don't forget that the specific intent in a crime is needed - that is, for murder, you need intention to kill. Intention to cause GBH is not sufficient as it would otherwise be]
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
    I mean haughton v smith.

    So if I was doing this for GBH s18
    I would state that the 'D's' act was more than merely preparatory in accordance to criminal attempt act s.1. I'll also use case law if there is a similar one for attempted GBH.
    Then the mens rea, which would be: Intending to comitt GBH. Meaning purpose intent under chandler v dpp/ r v stean, or having an oblique intent under r v woolin ( the virtual certainity test).
    Then, if the mensrea suffices and in accordance to the actus reus if there is a more than preparatory act then they will be convicted. So for attempted acts is the liability the same as the original offence? So the normal penalty would be life under s.18, if it were committed.So will that be the same for attempted GBH? Would I state life improsonment


    Thank you so much for your help! I appreciate it immensely seeing as my lecturer is so negligent in her teaching!
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
    It's actually very interesting just a lot to remember, but it's possible. I just love this subject; it's just negligent lazy lecturers that get on my bad side.
    (Original post by fefssdf)
    Wow law sounds so complicated and dull
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Highfiveyou)
    I mean haughton v smith.

    So if I was doing this for GBH s18
    I would state that the 'D's' act was more than merely preparatory in accordance to criminal attempt act s.1. I'll also use case law if there is a similar one for attempted GBH.
    Then the mens rea, which would be: Intending to comitt GBH. Meaning purpose intent under chandler v dpp/ r v stean, or having an oblique intent under r v woolin ( the virtual certainity test).
    Then, if the mensrea suffices and in accordance to the actus reus if there is a more than preparatory act then they will be convicted. So for attempted acts is the liability the same as the original offence? So the normal penalty would be life under s.18, if it were committed.So will that be the same for attempted GBH? Would I state life improsonment


    Thank you so much for your help! I appreciate it immensely seeing as my lecturer is so negligent in her teaching!
    With regards to AR, that is correct - though you should always mentioned as much case law as possible before saying it is more than merely preparatory - examiners know there is uncertainty here, but they do expect a reasoned argument (even if case law is not relevant to GBH - remember you're taking the ratio).

    As for MR, only intent to kill will suffice - oblique intent is not sufficient and thus Woolin does not apply (read what I wrote above re specific intent).

    With regards to charges, see s4 of the CAA 1981.

    Glad to have helped
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
    Thanks I was not
    Talking about intent to kill I was in about GBH which is different from murder. As for murder I'm
    Aware an intention to do GBH would also be suffient if it inevitable kills V, as well as having just an intent to kill.
    As for GBH there are two intents indirect and direct= which are sufficient intention to be held liable for GBH. Direct intention (r v stean) and indirect will apply as for the case of r v woolin.

    I was just staying this because I'm going To do property offences for my exam, and under s.91b you can get convicted for burglary with attempted or intentional GBH whatever the case may be.

    Also is the penalty the same for attempt GBH too? As GBH is life,
    So would attempted GBH also be life?
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Highfiveyou)
    Thanks I was not
    Talking about intent to kill I was in about GBH which is different from murder. As for murder I'm
    Aware an intention to do GBH would also be suffient if it inevitable kills V, as well as having just an intent to kill.
    As for GBH there are two intents indirect and direct= which are sufficient intention to be held liable for GBH. Direct intention (r v stean) and indirect will apply as for the case of r v woolin.

    I was just staying this because I'm going To do property offences for my exam, and under s.91b you can get convicted for burglary with attempted or intentional GBH whatever the case may be.

    Also is the penalty the same for attempt GBH too? As GBH is life,
    So would attempted GBH also be life?
    No - When it comes to attempts, the lower mens rea threshold is not sufficient. Only intention to cause grievous bodily harm will suffice for GBH, and only intention to kill for murder. Nothing else. Essentially, only direct intent suffices.

    Yes, it should be the same according to the act (we haven't covered charges personally).

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
    Thank you it's just shocking we never went through this at all and it's coming up in my exam under s91a bulglary when an inidvidual trespasses
    With an ulterior intent , or an ulterior attempts to steal comitt criminal damage or causes GBH once he becomes a trespasser. What about recklessness in
    Criminal damage (r v Cunningham; r v G& R) not Suffice? As it's the lower
    Form mens rea but the only one along with dishonestly (r v ghost ) and intent to permanently deprive (chandler v dpp)
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
    Oh sorry specific intent would be theft and GBH. So an intent to streal will only suffice and an intent to do GBH will only suffices as the ulterior offence under s91b for burglary. I just got confused, so for theft will I also
    State r v ghost too? So state he was also dishonest and has an intention to permanently deprive v . As there isn't a lower form im of mensrea for this i,e: recklessness. As intent will only suffice for theft and GBH when attempted as a ulterior offence under s.91b
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by *Stefan*)
    No - When it comes to attempts, the lower mens rea threshold is not sufficient. Only intention to cause grievous bodily harm will suffice for GBH, and only intention to kill for murder. Nothing else. Essentially, only direct intent suffices.

    Yes, it should be the same according to the act (we haven't covered charges personally).

    Posted from TSR Mobile

    What about attempted criminal damage then?
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    Your OP said "in relation to" 9(1)(a) Theft Act 1968 , and s 9(1)(a) has nothing to do with attempts to commit anything. It is solely concerned with intent.

    Attempts are relevant under s 9(1)(b) - but criminal damage is not, so for the purposes of burglary it is irrelevant what the MR of attempted criminal damage is. [But the answer is that you must intend to damage property].
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Forum User)
    Your OP said "in relation to" 9(1)(a) Theft Act 1968 , and s 9(1)(a) has nothing to do with attempts to commit anything. It is solely concerned with intent.

    Attempts are relevant under s 9(1)(b) - but criminal damage is not, so for the purposes of burglary it is irrelevant what the MR of attempted criminal damage is. [But the answer is that you must intend to damage property].

    Thank you for spotting! Also I read somewhere that intent under s91a for criminal damage had to be conditional intent. I don't know what they mean by this?
    Also in relation to s91b will I have to also consider criminal attempt act? And specific intent should only be required for GBH, so can oblique intent be considered because this is a type of intent that could hold liability for GBH (r v woolin). Also do only the ulterior offences under s91b require a specific intent in the order to be liable? Or does this also apply to s91a too?
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    I think most of those questions have been answered already.

    Conditional Intent:

    D commits burglary if he enters a building (etc) with the intention of committing (for example) theft. Suppose that one particular D needs a new television. He doesn't want just any old crap TV, he only wants a new 50" plasma TV. He spots a likely looking house and breaks in, intending to take a 50" plasma TV if they have one. If they don't have one, he doesn't intend to take anything. D is guilty of burglary because he intends to commit theft (conditional on there being a suitable item to steal).

    That ought to be true for criminal damage as well. i.e. if D intends to destroy any TVs that he finds in the building, then D will be guilty of burglary even if he has no idea whether the property he is breaking into contains any TVs.

    Criminal Attempt Act:

    Yes, you will have to consider it...

    Oblique Intent:

    Is enough for attempted murder - R v Pearman, R v Walker & Hayles. Should be enough for other attempted offences although dont know any cases. Read Law Reform Consulation Paper no 183, Conspiracy and Attempt. See p 461 Smith & Hogan.


    Specific Intent:

    Well obviously it applies to s 9(1)(a) - the section says that you have to intend the offence. It applies to s 9(1)(b) because s 1(1)(a) Criminal Attempts Act 1981 requires "intent to commit an offence" in order to be "guilty of attempting to commit the offence". But again it is obvious as a matter of common sense, isn't it?
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Forum User)
    I think most of those questions have been answered already.

    Conditional Intent:

    D commits burglary if he enters a building (etc) with the intention of committing (for example) theft. Suppose that one particular D needs a new television. He doesn't want just any old crap TV, he only wants a new 50" plasma TV. He spots a likely looking house and breaks in, intending to take a 50" plasma TV if they have one. If they don't have one, he doesn't intend to take anything. D is guilty of burglary because he intends to commit theft (conditional on there being a suitable item to steal).

    That ought to be true for criminal damage as well. i.e. if D intends to destroy any TVs that he finds in the building, then D will be guilty of burglary even if he has no idea whether the property he is breaking into contains any TVs.

    Criminal Attempt Act:

    Yes, you will have to consider it...

    Oblique Intent:

    Is enough for attempted murder - R v Pearman, R v Walker & Hayles. Should be enough for other attempted offences although dont know any cases. Read Law Reform Consulation Paper no 183, Conspiracy and Attempt. See p 461 Smith & Hogan.


    Specific Intent:

    Well obviously it applies to s 9(1)(a) - the section says that you have to intend the offence. It applies to s 9(1)(b) because s 1(1)(a) Criminal Attempts Act 1981 requires "intent to commit an offence" in order to be "guilty of attempting to commit the offence". But again it is obvious as a matter of common sense, isn't it?
    Sorry specific intent in my knowledge was a direct intention and nothing less .Meaning any lower form will not suffice,for example, recklessness (r v Cunningham;RvG&r).That's is why I was so puzzled, as s91a states criminal
    Damage - does this mean simple criminal damage, aggravated criminal damage? As I'm aware recklessness is the mens rea for these two offences under the criminal damage act, so it would be basic intent rather than specific. My point is if criminal damage is an ulterior offence of basic intention, then why is this section stating that there is a need for specific intention. I'm aware for theft it would be intention to permanently deprive (chandler v dpp= purpose intent) dishonesty r v ghost and many more. GBH intention (direct it indirect intention - r v stean) to cause grievous bodily harm (r v Saunders).

    Correct me if I am wrong
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
    Thank you guys for your help! I appreciate it
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Highfiveyou)
    Sorry specific intent in my knowledge was a direct intention and nothing less .Meaning any lower form will not suffice,for example, recklessness (r v Cunningham;RvG&r).That's is why I was so puzzled, as s91a states criminal
    Damage - does this mean simple criminal damage, aggravated criminal damage? As I'm aware recklessness is the mens rea for these two offences under the criminal damage act, so it would be basic intent rather than specific. My point is if criminal damage is an ulterior offence of basic intention, then why is this section stating that there is a need for specific intention. I'm aware for theft it would be intention to permanently deprive (chandler v dpp= purpose intent) dishonesty r v ghost and many more. GBH intention (direct it indirect intention - r v stean) to cause grievous bodily harm (r v Saunders).

    Correct me if I am wrong
    I'm not 100% sure what you mean.

    s 9(1)(a) says that "he enters any building or part of a building as a trespasser and with intent to commit any such offence". Therefore intention and not recklessness is required to commit an offence under s 9(1)(a).
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Forum User)
    I'm not 100% sure what you mean.

    s 9(1)(a) says that "he enters any building or part of a building as a trespasser and with intent to commit any such offence". Therefore intention and not recklessness is required to commit an offence under s 9(1)(a).
    Thank you for the help; I hope someone has the answer seeing as lecturers just want to ruin my life -____0
 
 
 
Reply
Submit reply
Turn on thread page Beta
Updated: July 28, 2016
Poll
“Yanny” or “Laurel”

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.