Study Notes · 85 sections
Robbery and burglary are among the most serious offences in the Theft Act 1968. They carry heavier maximum sentences than basic theft because they involve additional wrongdoing: robbery adds force or the threat of force, and burglary adds trespass to a building. Understanding these offences is essential for the SQE because they test whether you can distinguish between closely related offences and apply the correct elements to problem scenarios.
This topic covers four main offences. Robbery under s.8 Theft Act 1968 is theft plus force. Burglary under s.9 Theft Act 1968 comes in two forms: entering as a trespasser with intent, or entering and then committing one of the listed offences. Aggravated vehicle-taking under s.12A adds aggravating features to the basic offence of taking a vehicle. Finally, handling stolen goods under s.22 catches those who deal with property after it has been stolen.
Section 8 of the Theft Act 1968 provides that a person is guilty of robbery if they steal, and immediately before or at the time of doing so, and in order to do so, they use force on any person or put or seek to put any person in fear of being then and there subjected to force. In plain English, robbery is theft plus force or the threat of force, used to carry out the theft. If you can establish theft, and then show force was used at the right time and for the right purpose, you have robbery.
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.
Robbery is an indictable-only offence, meaning it must be tried in the Crown Court. The maximum sentence is life imprisonment. This reflects the seriousness of the offence. The use of force against a person during a theft makes it far more threatening and dangerous than simple theft, and the law treats it accordingly.
The first element beyond theft is the use of force. The force does not need to be much. In R v Dawson and James (1976), the defendants nudged a victim from behind, causing him to lose his balance and fall, then took his wallet. The Court of Appeal held this amounted to force, even though the victim was frail and the nudges were slight. What matters is the effect on the victim, not the strength of the defendant.
The defendants nudged a victim who was frail and had a heart condition, causing him to fall. They then stole his wallet. The court held that the nudges constituted force for the purposes of robbery. The test is whether the force was used to enable the stealing, not whether the force was strong in the abstract. The vulnerability of the victim is irrelevant to whether force was used.
The force must be directed at a person, not merely at property. In R v Clouden (1987), the defendant grabbed a shopping basket from the victim’s hand. The court held this was force used on a person because the victim was holding the basket at the time. Contrast this with a scenario where the defendant simply snatches a bag lying on a table with no physical contact with the victim — that would not be robbery because there is no force on a person.
The defendant grabbed a shopping basket from the victim’s hand in a shop. The court held that grabbing the basket from the victim’s grip was force applied to the person, because the force overcame the victim’s physical resistance. The key point is that the force was directed against the person through the item they were holding.
Robbery also covers putting or seeking to put someone in fear of force. This means the defendant does not actually have to use force — a threat can be enough. The threat must be of force "then and there", meaning immediate. A threat such as "I will hurt you if you don’t give me your phone" is sufficient. But a threat like "I will hurt you next week unless you pay me" would not be robbery because it is not immediate.
Remember: the force must be on a person or a threat to a person. Force used only on property (such as prying open a window to steal) is not robbery. There must be some connection between the force and a person for the robbery offence to be made out.
The statute says force must be used "immediately before or at the time of" stealing. This is a strict requirement. If force is used after the theft is complete, it is not robbery. The force must be connected to the stealing in time.
The defendant used force to retain property he had already stolen. The court held this was NOT robbery because the force was used after the theft was complete. The theft had already happened by the time force was used. This case establishes that force used purely to retain stolen property, where the theft is already complete, does not amount to robbery.
The defendants forced their way into the victim’s home. One held the victim down while the other went upstairs to take property. The court held the entire transaction was a single incident, so the force was "at the time of" stealing. Even though the stealing happened upstairs while the force was applied downstairs, the court treated the whole event as one continuous act of robbery. This is the "entire transaction" approach.
The defendant entered a shop and put goods in his bag. When challenged by the shopkeeper, he pushed past the shopkeeper to escape. The court held this was robbery because the force was used during the theft. The theft was still in progress when the force was used to escape with the goods. The force and the stealing were part of the same continuous event.
The key distinction is between force used during the theft (robbery) and force used after the theft is complete (not robbery). Ask yourself: at the moment force was used, was the theft still happening? If the defendant has already got away and uses force later to avoid being caught, that is not robbery.
The defendant must have the mens rea for theft (intention to permanently deprive, dishonesty, and so on) plus the intention to use force to assist in the stealing. The force must be used "in order to" steal. This means the defendant must intend the force to help them carry out the theft. If force is used for some other purpose, it may not amount to robbery.
The phrase "in order to" steal means the force must be used for the purpose of stealing. If a defendant pushes someone out of the way to get to a display cabinet and steal jewellery, that is force used in order to steal. But if a defendant is involved in a fight for unrelated reasons and sees an opportunity to steal during the commotion, the force may not be "in order to" steal and the offence may be theft rather than robbery.
To prove robbery, you need: (1) a completed theft, (2) force or threat of force on a person, (3) force used immediately before or at the time of stealing, and (4) force used in order to steal. If any element is missing, the defendant may be guilty of theft instead.
Robbery carries a maximum sentence of life imprisonment. This makes it one of the most serious offences in the Theft Act. In practice, sentences vary enormously depending on the circumstances. A street robbery of a mobile phone with minimal force may attract a relatively short custodial sentence, while an armed robbery of a bank could result in a very long prison term.
| Feature | Theft (s.1) | Robbery (s.8) |
|---|---|---|
| Force required? | No | Yes — on a person |
| Threat of force? | No | Yes — immediate threat |
| Timing element? | No | Yes — force immediately before/at time of stealing |
| Purpose of force? | N/A | Must be "in order to" steal |
| Maximum sentence | 7 years | Life imprisonment |
| Mode of trial | Either-way | Indictable-only |
| Completed theft needed? | Yes | Yes |
Section 9 of the Theft Act 1968 creates two distinct types of burglary. Under s.9(1)(a), a person commits burglary if they enter a building as a trespasser with intent to steal, inflict grievous bodily harm, or do unlawful damage. Under s.9(1)(b), a person commits burglary if, having entered a building as a trespasser, they steal or attempt to steal, inflict or attempt to inflict grievous bodily harm. The key difference is when the guilty intent arises: before entry for s.9(1)(a), or after entry for s.9(1)(b).
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.
| Element | s.9(1)(a) | s.9(1)(b) |
|---|---|---|
| When does D form intent? | Before or at the time of entry | After entry |
| What must D intend/commit? | Steal, inflict GBH, or do damage | Steal/attempt steal, or inflict/attempt inflict GBH |
| Does D need to complete the offence? | No — intent alone is enough | Must actually commit or attempt the offence |
| Is damage an option? | Yes — intent to do damage is enough | No — damage is not listed in s.9(1)(b) |
| Maximum sentence | 14 years (intent to steal), 10 years (intent GBH/damage) | 14 years (if theft committed) |
In an exam scenario, look at when the defendant formed the intent. If they entered the building already planning to steal, that is s.9(1)(a). If they entered without that intent but then decided to steal once inside, that is s.9(1)(b). The timing of the intent is the key distinction.
The offence requires entry into a "building or part of a building". This is broadly interpreted. Section 9(4) extends the definition to include inhabited vehicles or vessels, so a houseboat or a caravan in which someone lives counts as a building. Tents and temporary structures can also qualify. However, the structure must be a building of some sort — open land, gardens, and outbuildings that are not attached to a dwelling may not qualify.
A door or window is NOT a "building or part of a building" for the purposes of burglary. In R v Walkington (1979), the defendant reached his arm through a broken shop window and stole goods from the display area. The court held that the shop window itself was not a building or part of a building, so reaching through it did not amount to entry. However, if he had reached into the shop itself (beyond the window), that could be entry into the building.
The defendant put his hand through the broken window of a shop and stole goods from the window display. The court held that a shop window is not a "building or part of a building", so putting a hand through it did not constitute entry. The goods were in the window display, not inside the shop building itself.
A defendant can commit burglary of only a "part" of a building if they only have permission to be in certain areas. For example, if you are invited into someone’s home but then go into their bedroom (where you are not allowed), you are a trespasser in that part of the building. The key question is whether the area the defendant entered is a distinct part of the building to which their permission does not extend.
The defendant must "enter" the building. This requires an effective and substantial entry, not merely a partial or nominal one. In R v Brown (1985), the defendant put his head and arm through a broken kitchen window. The court held this was sufficient entry because a substantial part of his body had crossed the threshold. The test is whether the entry is effective enough to amount to an invasion of the building.
The defendant put his head and arm through a broken kitchen window. He was caught before going any further. The court held that putting his head and arm through the window amounted to entry into the building. This was a sufficient and effective entry because a substantial part of his body was inside the building.
The defendant got stuck in a window frame while trying to enter a building. He had not managed to get any part of his body inside the building. The court held there was no entry because the defendant had not effectively entered the building. Being stuck in the window frame, without getting any part of the body inside, was not sufficient.
Ask: has any part of the defendant’s body effectively crossed into the building? A hand, arm, or head through a window can be enough (Brown). But being stuck in the frame without entering is not enough (Ryan). The entry must be more than merely nominal — it must be effective.
For burglary, the defendant must enter "as a trespasser". This means they enter without permission or they exceed the scope of any permission they have been given. It is essentially the same concept as dishonest appropriation for theft — the defendant must know they are a trespasser or be reckless as to whether they are.
The defendant was given a key to the victim’s flat and invited to stay there while the victim was away. He was told not to let anyone else in. He let in two friends who stole from the flat. The House of Lords held that the defendant himself was not a trespasser because he had permission to be in the flat. However, his friends were trespassers because they entered without permission.
The defendants were staying at the victim’s flat with his permission. They decided to take his property while he was out. The court held that although they had permission to be in the flat, they were trespassers in relation to the taking of property because they knew they had no permission to take his belongings. However, for s.9(1)(a) burglary, the question is whether they were trespassers at the time of entry — if they entered with permission, they may not be trespassers for s.9(1)(a) even if they later decide to steal.
The defendant entered a shop during opening hours. He was allowed to be there as a customer, but he exceeded the scope of his permission by concealing goods. The court held that entering with the intent to steal meant he was a trespasser at the time of entry, even though members of the public were allowed in the shop. This is because his purpose in entering was entirely inconsistent with the purpose for which permission was given.
The defendant climbed a ladder and entered a woman’s bedroom through a window at night. The woman initially thought he was her boyfriend and allowed him to stay. The court held that consent obtained by deception does not make the entry non-trespassory. Even if the woman had allowed him to stay, he entered as a trespasser because he had no genuine right to be there.
For s.9(1)(a), the defendant must be a trespasser at the time of entry. For s.9(1)(b), the defendant must have entered as a trespasser, but the offence they commit inside happens after entry. If someone enters with permission but later forms the intent to steal, they may not be guilty of s.9(1)(a) (because they were not a trespasser on entry) but could be guilty of s.9(1)(b) if they then steal.
For s.9(1)(a) burglary, the defendant must intend to steal, inflict GBH, or do damage at the time of entry. This intent must exist when they enter as a trespasser. If they form the intent after entering, s.9(1)(a) does not apply. In R v Walkington (1979), the court confirmed that the intent must exist at the time of entry for s.9(1)(a).
For s.9(1)(b) burglary, the defendant must enter as a trespasser, and then the mens rea for the substantive offence (theft or GBH) must exist at the time they commit that offence inside the building. The defendant does not need to have any ulterior intent at the time of entry. They simply need to enter as a trespasser and then form the intent to steal (or inflict GBH) while inside.
For both types of burglary, the defendant must know they are entering as a trespasser or be reckless as to whether they are trespassing. If the defendant genuinely and reasonably believes they have permission to enter, they are not a trespasser. But recklessness is enough — if the defendant does not think about whether they have permission but a reasonable person would have realised, that may be sufficient.
Burglary involving theft (either s.9(1)(a) with intent to steal or s.9(1)(b) where theft is committed) carries a maximum sentence of 14 years’ imprisonment. Burglary with intent to inflict GBH or do damage, where no theft is involved, carries a maximum of 10 years. The sentence depends on the circumstances, including whether the burglary was domestic (a dwelling) or commercial.
Domestic burglary (burglary of a dwelling) is treated particularly seriously. Under the Powers of Criminal Courts (Sentencing) Act 2000, a defendant convicted of a third domestic burglary offence faces a mandatory minimum sentence of three years’ imprisonment, unless the court considers it would be unjust in all the circumstances. This "three-strike" rule reflects the serious impact of burglary on victims in their homes.
Domestic burglary is always treated as more serious than commercial burglary because of the psychological impact on victims whose homes have been violated. In sentencing, courts take into account factors such as whether the victim was at home, the time of day, and whether items of sentimental value were taken.
Under s.12(1) of the Theft Act 1968, it is an offence to take a mechanically propelled vehicle without the consent of the owner or other person in lawful possession of it. This is sometimes called "twoc" (taking without consent). The offence does not require an intention to permanently deprive, which distinguishes it from theft. Joyriding can therefore be caught by s.12 even though the defendant may intend to abandon the vehicle later.
Section 12A creates the aggravated offence. It applies when a person takes a mechanically propelled vehicle without consent, and it is proved that, at any time after the vehicle was taken and before it was recovered, the vehicle was driven dangerously, or an accident occurred as a result of the taking which caused damage or injury, or the vehicle was damaged or set on fire.
The aggravated offence under s.12A carries a maximum sentence of two years’ imprisonment. The basic offence under s.12 carries a maximum of six months’ imprisonment. The aggravated version is therefore significantly more serious. If the driving causes death, the defendant could face additional charges such as causing death by dangerous driving.
The key difference between taking under s.12 and theft of a vehicle is that s.12 does not require an intention to permanently deprive. If the defendant takes a car for a joyride and abandons it later, that is s.12 (or s.12A if aggravated), not theft. If the defendant takes the car intending to keep it or sell it, that could be both theft and s.12.
Section 22 of the Theft Act 1968 makes it an offence to handle stolen goods. A person handles stolen goods if (otherwise than in the course of the stealing) they receive the goods, or arrange to receive them, or assist in their retention, removal, disposal, or realisation, or undertake or assist in their retention, removal, disposal, or realisation. The goods must have been stolen by someone else — you cannot handle your own stolen goods.
A person handles stolen goods if (otherwise than in the course of the stealing), knowing or believing them to be stolen goods he receives the goods, or arranges to receive them, or assists in their retention, removal, disposal or realisation by or for the benefit of another person, or if he arranges to do so.
The mens rea for handling requires that the defendant knows or believes the goods are stolen. In R v Sood (2013), the court confirmed that suspicion is not enough — the defendant must actually know or believe the goods are stolen. However, "belief" does not require certainty. A defendant who suspects goods are stolen but deliberately avoids confirming this (turning a blind eye) may be found to believe they are stolen.
The defendant bought a large quantity of cigarettes at a price well below market value. He claimed he did not know they were stolen. The court held that the question was whether the jury was sure the defendant knew or believed the goods were stolen. Buying goods at a price far below their market value is strong evidence of such knowledge or belief, but it is not conclusive.
The key distinction between handling and theft is that handling applies to goods that have already been stolen by someone else. The handler is not the thief. A thief can be convicted of theft but not handling of the same goods. A handler can be convicted of handling but not theft (unless they were also involved in the original stealing). The offences are mutually exclusive in relation to the same goods and the same defendant.
Handling stolen goods carries a maximum sentence of 14 years’ imprisonment on indictment. This reflects the serious role that handlers play in the chain of criminality. Without handlers, thieves would have difficulty profiting from their crimes. The sentence depends on the value of the goods, the defendant’s role, and whether the handling was planned or opportunistic.
When faced with a robbery problem question, work through the elements in order. First, is there a completed theft? If not, there can be no robbery. Second, was force used on a person? Third, was the force used immediately before or at the time of stealing? Fourth, was the force used in order to steal? If any element fails, consider whether the defendant is guilty of theft or assault instead.
For burglary, identify the type first. Did the defendant enter with an ulterior intent (s.9(1)(a))? Or did they enter as a trespasser and then commit an offence inside (s.9(1)(b))? Then check each element: was it a building or part of a building? Did the defendant enter? Were they a trespasser at the relevant time? What was their mens rea?
In exam questions, the facts may not clearly support the most serious offence. A defendant who attempts a robbery but does not complete the theft could be guilty of attempted robbery. A defendant who enters a building as a trespasser but does not steal may only be guilty of attempted burglary under s.9(1)(a) if the intent was present, or may not be guilty of burglary at all if they only formed the intent after entry and did not carry it out.
In an SQE question, always consider whether the defendant could be charged with more than one offence. For example, a burglary where goods are stolen could also give rise to a separate theft charge. A robbery could also involve assault. Think about what offences are available and which the prosecution would be most likely to charge.