The criticisms on the law of robbery and burglary is that
In order for robbery to be committed, theft needs to be completed, in cases of theft appropriation only occurs at one time whereas in the robbery theft is a continuing act, as seen in the case of Lockley where defendant (D) used force to escape after he had stolen; therefore this is a problem because when using elements of theft it conflicts with the courts approach in theft cases.
The Theft Act 1968 does not give any definition of the key elements of ‘entry’, ‘trespasser’, ‘building or part of a building’ in burglary. The inconsistency of not having any definitions causes the courts into deciding what the Act actually meant; therefore leading to different courts making different decisions on what it means, especially what is meant by ‘entry’. This is a problem because it means judge made law going against what the parliament actually meant. In addition to this the law on entry has changed as seen in the case of Collins where the principle stated that the D must know they are a trespasser or are reckless in not knowing. Here the CoA held that there needs to be ‘an effective and substantial entry’. However when it came to the case of Brown the ‘substantial’ part was removed and Brown was guilty of burglary as his entry was ‘effective’. Whereas in the case of Ryan ‘effective’ element was abandoned and Ryan was guilty because the jury found that D had entered the house. The decisions in these cases are inconsistent and leave the law uncertain.
