Burglary and robbery criminal liability

The question concerns issues regarding burglary and robbery and will be dealt accordingly.

To discuss whether Diane and Viv have any criminal liability to each other we have to know first what is burglary and robbery is. By s9 Theft Act l968:- "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)OR(b) Having entered 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 and according to s8(1) Theft Act l968:-"A person is guilty of robbery if he 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."

Regarding Diane:

The facts state that Diane was entitled to keep an eye to viv's house while she was away. In that time Diane used Viv's digital camera for some days and replaced it. She also drank half bottle of wine. The fact of argument is she committed burglary? The problem arises with the authorised entry of her which is not in a sense a trespasser but according to the case of Laing [1995] CLR 395 it is needed to consider that where permission has been granted, it can be exceeded subsequently. So the ac of burglary is trespassing any building or a part as a trespasser where authorised entry can be also considered but was she dishonest? The MR for burglary is entering the house intentionally and Diane might have intention to use Viv's property when entering the house but it is up to the jury's to define.

Regarding Viv:

Facts state that viv has chased Diane for breaking the wine bottle and took £50from her purse by grabbing her bag. this issue concerns legal offence under robbery act. To prove a robbery force must be must be used against a person not property, but not necessarily against the person in possession(Smith v. Desmond [l965] 1 All ER).ANY AMOUNT OF FORCE, or even a mere threat, will suffice(Dawson v. James [l976] CAR 64) and ROBBERY IS COMPLETE at the time of appropriation(Corcoran v. Anderton [l980] CAR 71).so it is clear that she used reasonable force by grabbing her bag but did she had MR? As she had a intention to use force MR may apply in this regards but still it depends to jury to define this and she may receive any defence of theft which applies.