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.
Updated 17 March 2026
This article broadly states the correct statutory framework for burglary under s.9 Theft Act 1968 and robbery under s.8 Theft Act 1968, which remain in force and unchanged in their essential terms. However, readers should be aware of several points of accuracy and limitation.
On burglary, the reference to R v Laing [1995] Crim LR 395 is legitimate in the context of exceeding permission and becoming a trespasser, though the leading authority on this point remains R v Jones and Smith [1976] 1 WLR 672, which should also be consulted. The article does not mention the important requirement under s.9(1)(a) that the defendant must have the requisite intent at the time of entry, nor does it clearly distinguish between the s.9(1)(a) and s.9(1)(b) routes to liability, which have different actus reus and mens rea requirements.
On robbery, the cases cited — Smith v Desmond [1965] 1 All ER 976, R v Dawson and James (1976) 64 Cr App R 170, and Corcoran v Anderton (1980) 71 Cr App R 104 — remain good law. However, the article incorrectly states that force need not be against the person in possession, without adequately explaining that force must still be against a person rather than property; the point from Smith v Desmond is that it need not be directed at the immediate victim of the theft, not that force against property suffices.
The article also omits the important House of Lords decision in R v Hinks [2001] 2 AC 241 and the broader case law on the meaning of appropriation under s.3 Theft Act 1968, which is relevant to both burglary and robbery analysis. The law of theft underpins both offences and students should ensure they are familiar with current case law on appropriation and dishonesty, including the Supreme Court’s restatement of the dishonesty test in Ivey v Genting Casinos [2017] UKSC 67, which has effectively replaced the Ghosh [1982] direction.
Overall, the statutory provisions cited are current, but the analysis is incomplete and some aspects are oversimplified. Students should not rely on this article alone.
