Ambiguities and Legal Precedents in Fear Inducement

In the current case, Austin will be liable to two kinds of property offences under the Theft Act 1968. Firstly, Austin will be liable for committing robbery as per Section 8. Secondly, Austin will also be liable for burglary as per Section 9.

According to Section 8(1), 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 a serious offence and is triable only on indictment. In the current case, Austin will be liable for robbery as he puts or seeks to put the Registrar in fear to hand over the keys to the safe. The problematic area of interpretation and application is the phrase “to put a person in fear”, which creates some ambiguity. Does this phrase require that the registrar is put in fear or prove sufficient that the registrar apprehended that force may be used in case he refused Austin? According to the ruling in R v DPP, it does not require the proof of putting the registrar in fear. Thus, to make Austin liable for robbery, the registrar needs no proof that he was put in fear by Austin. The case of Grant v CPS suggested that the necessity of the apprehension that force will be used. However, it is sufficient that Austin should have intention to produce a state of mind where the registrar apprehends force and that it is not necessary for Austin to intend that the registrar will be afraid. If you are seeking criminology dissertation help, understanding the nuances of legal interpretation and case law is critical for constructing a strong argument.

The case of R v Tennat brings clarity and accordingly Austin is liable for robbery if he threatened a use of force and therefore met the requirement of the robbery offence irrespective of the fact that the registrar is made to apprehend the immediate infliction of force by Austin on him, which is required to constitute an assault. A threat to use force is implied and express. If Austin threatens the registrar with force, unless the registrar obeys Austin’s demand and at a later stage Austin takes property from a non-protesting registrar, Austin may be convicted of the offence of robbery if he intends. In B (JJ), it was observed that robbery could also be committed without any use of force. This depends on the circumstance of the case as there is a possibility of the offence of stealing and not robbery, but in any way would amount to use assault or battery or similar non-fatal offences.

Applying Section 8 of the Theft Act 1968, Austin is liable for the offence of robbery as he puts or seeks to put the Registrar in fear to hand over the keys to the safe and thereafter stealing the cash from the safe box. For Austin to be made liable, it is therefore sufficient to show that he intended to produce a state of mind where the registrar apprehends force, and he cannot claim that he intended for the registrar to be afraid. Even if he did not commit the threat of breaking the registrar neck, he would be still liable of robbery and if not would be

1. David C. Ormerod, Karl Laird, Brian Hogan and John Cyril Smith, Smith and Hogan's Criminal Law (Oxford University Press 2011).
2. DPP v R [2007] EWHC 739.
3. Grant v CPS [2000] QBD.
4. avid C. Ormerod, Karl Laird, Brian Hogan and John Cyril Smith, Smith and Hogan's Criminal Law (Oxford University Press 2011).
5. R v Tennant 1976 Crim LR 133.
6. David C. Ormerod, Karl Laird, Brian Hogan and John Cyril Smith, Smith and Hogan's Criminal Law (Oxford University Press 2011).
7. B (JJ) [2012] EWCA Crim 1440.

liable to other non-fatal offence such as assault and theft as provided under Section 7. According to Section 8(2), Austin will be liable for robber or “of an assault with intent to rob” and he shall, on conviction on indictment, be liable to life imprisonment.

The Theft Act 1968, Section 9 defines burglary as an illegal entry to a premise followed by either theft or with intent to commit an offence. There is no need to show that anything is stolen but the decisive factor is to determine whether there is an illegal entry with intent. According to Section 9(1)(a) of the Act, a person is guilty of burglary “if 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)”. Section 9(1)(b) provides that offence occurs “if 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.” In the current case, it could be proved that Austin has committed burglary. His entry to the registrar office is illegal entry with the intent to take cash from the safe. Trespass is a necessary element and it should be proved that the person committing burglary knew or he was reckless as to whether or not he was a trespasser. But, trespass could be proved without any evidence from the occupier in person. As such, the registrar does not need to show any evidence that Austin trespassed the office. It is sufficient if Austin knew that he was a trespasser or even if he did not know, he was reckless about whether or not he was a trespasser.

The definition of what constitutes entry was not covered in the Act. There are two cases that determines of whether there was an entry or not. The case of R v Collins ruled that the entry should be an “effective and substantial entry”. This was modified further by the case of R v Brown and Stratton that rules that the entry should be an effective entry. According, Austin entry was an effective entry as he managed to enter the office and went for the safe to take out the cash. But what acts can covert a property crime into burglary? According to Section 9 of the Act, only two acts of Austin can convert a property crime into burglary. Austin should have entered the building or part of a building as a trespasser and have either stolen or inflicted or attempted to inflict on the registrar any grievous bodily harm. The illegal entry must be in a building or part of the building with the intent to steal. In the current case, the registrar office forms part of the University building and Austin illegal entry with the intent to steal the cash and actually stealing the cash constitute an act of burglary. Further, there was also an attempt to inflict grievous bodily harm to registrar when Austin threatened the registrar “to break his neck” when the registrar refused to give him the keys to the safe. It should be noted here that only grievous bodily harm with the intent as described under Section 18 of Offences Against the Person Act 1891 is considered while determining burglary

---

8. Rob Mawby, Burglary (Routledge 2013).
9. David C. Ormerod, Karl Laird, Brian Hogan and John Cyril Smith, Smith and Hogan's Criminal Law (Oxford University Press 2011).
10. Jacqueline Martin and Tony Storey, Unlocking Criminal Law (Routledge 2013).
11. R v Collins (1972) 2 All ER 1105.
12. R v Brown and Stratton [1988] Crim LR 48.
13. Jeremy Horder, Ashworth's Principles of Criminal Law (Oxford University Press 2016).
14. David C. Ormerod, Karl Laird, Brian Hogan and John Cyril Smith, Smith and Hogan's Criminal Law (Oxford University Press 2011).

under the Section 19 of the Act. Further, there should be a proof of the intention to commit burglary at the time Austin made the entry as a trespasser. It must be satisfied that an express demand or threat in words was made for money. In absence, the demeanour of Austin and the circumstances of the case were enough to show that a reasonable person could understand that a demand was being made and such demand was accompanied by menaces, not necessarily direct, which upsets ordinary balance of mind. Menaces could be express or implied and the circumstances of the case have to be considered. Lord Wright in the case of Thorne v Motor Trade Association observed that the word “menace” has to be construed liberally and it should not be limited to the threats of violence. It must include any threats of any action that is detrimental or unpleasant to the registrar or some warnings to that effect. The threat should be aimed at the registrar. In R v Lambert, it was ruled that the person giving the threat does not necessarily be capable of carrying out the threat or of controlling whether that threat is executed.

In the current case, it could be shown that Austin had the intention of committing the crime when he threatened and demanded the key to the safe. It could also be shown that he made the demand not by express words but by his behaviour of demanding the keys to the safe and using the threatening language to force or attempt to force the registrar to submit to his demand. Therefore, according to Section 9(3), a person “guilty of burglary shall on conviction on indictment be liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 14 years “where the offence was committed in respect of a building or part of a building which is a dwelling” and ten years in any other case.

In conclusion, Austin is guilty for robbery as per Section 8 as he intended to put the registrar in fear and he stole the cash from the safe. As per Section 9, Austin is also liable for burglary as he effectively and illegally entered the office as a trespasser with intent to commit any such offence, and also attempted to inflict on the registrar any grievous bodily harm.

Looking for further insights on Adequacy of the UK Anti-Money Laundering Regime? Click here.

---

15. Janet Loveless, Complete Criminal Law: Text, Cases, and Materials (Oxford University Press, 2018).
16. Ibid.
17. Thorne v Motor Trade Association [1937] AC 797.
18. R v Lambert [2009] EWCA CRIM 2860 Court of Appeal.

Cases

B (JJ) [2012] EWCA Crim 1440.

DPP v R [2007] EWHC 739.

Grant v CPS [2000] QBD.

R v Tennant 1976 Crim LR 133.

R v Collins (1972) 2 All ER 1105.

R v Brown and Stratton [1988] Crim LR 48.

R v Lambert [2009] EWCA CRIM 2860 Court of Appeal.

Thorne v Motor Trade Association [1937] AC 797.

Bibliography

Books

Ormerod DC, Karl Laird, Brian Hogan and John Cyril Smith, Smith and Hogan's Criminal Law (Oxford University Press 2011).

Mawby R, Burglary (Routledge 2013).

Martin J and Storey T, Unlocking Criminal Law (Routledge 2013).

Horder J, Ashworth's Principles of Criminal Law (Oxford University Press 2016).

Loveless J, Complete Criminal Law: Text, Cases, and Materials (Oxford University Press, 2018).