Problem Question: Criminal Law, No.22

Problem Question

Dorkus offers to help Wingus, as Wingus is struggling to carry a large package through her doorway. Together, they manoeuvre the package inside. Seeing a £5 note on a side table, Dorkus reaches towards it, thinking that he has earned it, but Wingus puts it in her pocket before he can grasp it. Thwarted, he snatches her car keys from her hand, intending to treat himself to a drive to the seaside in her car before returning the car later that day if he feels like it. What offences, if any, have been committed by Dorkus?

Analysis

1. Liability for Attempted Burglary

Elements of Burglary (s.9 Theft Act 1968):

• Entry as a Trespasser: Burglary requires entry into a building or part of a building as a trespasser with the intention to commit theft, GBH, or unlawful damage. However, in R v Collins (1973), it was held that if a person does not see themselves as a trespasser (i.e., believes they are invited in), they cannot be guilty of burglary. Here, Dorkus helped Wingus carry a package into her house, so he did not perceive himself as a trespasser. Therefore, there is no burglary.

• Attempted Burglary: For an attempted burglary, there must be an attempt to commit the full offence. Dorkus reaching for the £5 note could be seen as an attempted theft. However, since he was not a trespasser, it cannot be an attempted burglary. The attempt to take the £5 note may still amount to attempted theft under s.1(1) Criminal Attempts Act 1981, but not burglary.

• Conclusion: Dorkus is not liable for attempted burglary since he did not enter Wingus's house as a trespasser. His action of reaching for the £5 note could be considered an attempted theft, but not attempted burglary.

2. Liability for Robbery

Elements of Robbery (s.8 Theft Act 1968):

• Theft: For robbery, there must be a theft, which includes dishonest appropriation of property belonging to another with the intention to permanently deprive. Dorkus took Wingus's car keys intending to use her car for a joyride, but he planned to return it later. Under R v Mitchell (2008), simply taking a car without intending to keep it did not amount to theft. However, s.6 Theft Act 1968 broadens this by considering treating property as one's own to dispose of, even temporarily, as potentially fulfilling the intention to permanently deprive. Using someone else's car without permission can be seen as treating it as your own.

• Force or Threat of Force: Robbery also requires that the theft was accompanied by the use or threat of force immediately before or at the time of the theft. Dorkus snatched the keys from Wingus, which involves some level of force. However, in P v DPP (2012), snatching a cigarette from someone’s hand was not considered sufficient force for robbery. Similarly, Dorkus's snatching of the keys may not meet the threshold for force in robbery.

• Conclusion: Dorkus may not be liable for robbery as the act of snatching the keys likely does not constitute sufficient force under the law. However, he could still be liable for theft if it is established that he treated the car as his own, despite his intention to return it.

3. Liability for Theft

Elements of Theft (s.1 Theft Act 1968):

• Dishonesty: Dorkus acted in bad faith when he took the car keys, which satisfies the dishonesty requirement under Ivey v Genting Casinos (2017).

• Appropriation: Taking the keys constitutes an appropriation of property.

• Property Belonging to Another: The keys belong to Wingus, fulfilling this element.

• Intention to Permanently Deprive: Although Dorkus intended to return the car, s.6 Theft Act 1968 suggests that treating property as one's own, even temporarily, can fulfil this requirement. Using the car without permission may be seen as a significant practical detriment to Wingus, especially if something were to happen to the car during the unauthorised use.

• Conclusion: Dorkus could be liable for theft if his use of the car is seen as treating it as his own to dispose of temporarily, which fulfils the intention to permanently deprive under s.6 Theft Act 1968.

Conclusion

• Attempted Burglary: Dorkus is not liable for attempted burglary because he was not a trespasser.

• Robbery: Dorkus is likely not liable for robbery as the snatching of the keys does not constitute sufficient force.

• Theft: Dorkus may be liable for theft if his unauthorised use of the car is considered treating the property as his own under s.6 Theft Act 1968.