Why is This Burglary
Discussion
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-birmingham-4...
I was under the impression (probably wrong so flame proof suit at the ready) that theft against the person was classed as robbery and treated more seriously.
I was under the impression (probably wrong so flame proof suit at the ready) that theft against the person was classed as robbery and treated more seriously.
tty attitude doesn't count. Assaults during the course of a Burglary are generally recorded as assault at the appropriate level - ABH/GBH (not common assault)
If the assault was in order to steal then a Robbery should be recorded.
In the case of an aggravated Burglary - if the level of injury is GBH, then the assault will trump the Burglary for recording purposes
Charges are a different matter
If the assault was in order to steal then a Robbery should be recorded.
In the case of an aggravated Burglary - if the level of injury is GBH, then the assault will trump the Burglary for recording purposes
Charges are a different matter
over_the_hill said:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-birmingham-4...
I was under the impression (probably wrong so flame proof suit at the ready) that theft against the person was classed as robbery and treated more seriously.
Various forms of offences against property, including robbery, theft and burglary, are covered by the Theft Act. I was under the impression (probably wrong so flame proof suit at the ready) that theft against the person was classed as robbery and treated more seriously.
There's a certain degree of overlap (thankfully) and the decision which to charge can be dependent on a number of factors.
Further, burglary has subsections. Although I know nothing about this case, going by the reports it would appear that the offender entered premises as a trespasser and whilst inside inflicted grievous bodily harm (a number of broken bones generally equals GBH - see below) on a person therein. Simple things to prove and low chances of the defence bringing in some matter to negate the charge.
Further, there are nine separate offences of burglary, presumably in the other cases the offender entered with intent to steal or whilst in the premises as a trespasser, stole items. Lump them all together and it shows a certain consistency.
I'd go with burglary.
One point: if a police officer is attacked and suffers broken bones, for instance two toes, this is not considered GBH even though 20 years later he gets more than a bit of pain from one of them. One of the vagaries of the law I'm afraid.
Derek Smith said:
...
One point: if a police officer is attacked and suffers broken bones, for instance two toes, this is not considered GBH even though 20 years later he gets more than a bit of pain from one of them. One of the vagaries of the law I'm afraid.
No, Derek, it really isn't. There is a difference between the general and the particular, and anecdote does not make data. One point: if a police officer is attacked and suffers broken bones, for instance two toes, this is not considered GBH even though 20 years later he gets more than a bit of pain from one of them. One of the vagaries of the law I'm afraid.
Breadvan72 said:
Derek Smith said:
...
One point: if a police officer is attacked and suffers broken bones, for instance two toes, this is not considered GBH even though 20 years later he gets more than a bit of pain from one of them. One of the vagaries of the law I'm afraid.
No, Derek, it really isn't. There is a difference between the general and the particular, and anecdote does not make data. One point: if a police officer is attacked and suffers broken bones, for instance two toes, this is not considered GBH even though 20 years later he gets more than a bit of pain from one of them. One of the vagaries of the law I'm afraid.
Sometimes (most of the time) I really don't understand the law, particularly in instances like this.
If someone broke into my house with the intention of stealing from me, that should be at least 3 separate charges from this list : burglary, theft, trespassing, breaking and entering, criminal damage.
If I am in the house and he attacks me in order to steal from me, then a whole host of other charges should be brought against him.
The fact that someone can commit this laundry list of crimes against me and just get done for 'burglary' is a farce, especially when burglary seems to attract such soft punishment..
If someone broke into my house with the intention of stealing from me, that should be at least 3 separate charges from this list : burglary, theft, trespassing, breaking and entering, criminal damage.
If I am in the house and he attacks me in order to steal from me, then a whole host of other charges should be brought against him.
The fact that someone can commit this laundry list of crimes against me and just get done for 'burglary' is a farce, especially when burglary seems to attract such soft punishment..
If an incident consists of a series of crimes against the same victim then the Police only record the most serious crime in that series - in your case - the Burglary. The other offences involved are still investigated investigated but under that single report.
Bit like your garage billing you for a service. You dont get separate bills for oil, filters, fluids and labour etc. Its all lumped under the one service heading.
Bit like your garage billing you for a service. You dont get separate bills for oil, filters, fluids and labour etc. Its all lumped under the one service heading.
Bigends said:
If an incident consists of a series of crimes against the same victim then the Police only record the most serious crime in that series - in your case - the Burglary. The other offences involved are still investigated investigated but under that single report.
Bit like your garage billing you for a service. You dont get separate bills for oil, filters, fluids and labour etc. Its all lumped under the one service heading.
No offence, but that might just be the worst analogy I have ever heard Bit like your garage billing you for a service. You dont get separate bills for oil, filters, fluids and labour etc. Its all lumped under the one service heading.
Shuvi McTupya said:
No offence, but that might just be the worst analogy I have ever heard
Sorry - its simple and it works - ok heres the official lineThe Principal Crime Rule
• IF THE SEQUENCE OF CRIMES IN AN INCIDENT, OR A COMPLEX CRIME, CONTAINS MORE THAN
ONE TYPE OF CRIME, THEN COUNT THE MOST SERIOUS CRIME.
In determining the most serious crime, the most serious violent crime (including rape) should generally take
precedence over the most serious property crime. If it is not possible to do this, regard should be taken of the
maximum sentence or, where equal sentences are prescribed, the maximum sentence likely to be imposed on
an offender.
Better?
Bigends, i was talking about the bit in bold!
Comparing a series of crimes to getting your car serviced!
I understand that you can murder someone brutally and then their family, and then their village and then then rape /pillage/murder the rest of their race, and just get charged with one offence.
Comparing a series of crimes to getting your car serviced!
I understand that you can murder someone brutally and then their family, and then their village and then then rape /pillage/murder the rest of their race, and just get charged with one offence.
Shuvi McTupya said:
Bigends, i was talking about the bit in bold!
Comparing a series of crimes to getting your car serviced!
I understand that you can murder someone brutally and then their family, and then their village and then then rape /pillage/murder the rest of their race, and just get charged with one offence.
I was explaining in simple terms that all of the minor offences get lumped under the single heading in relation to recordingComparing a series of crimes to getting your car serviced!
I understand that you can murder someone brutally and then their family, and then their village and then then rape /pillage/murder the rest of their race, and just get charged with one offence.
Shuvi, here's the deal, from the leading text on criminal law (The Wind in the Willows, Chapter 6: Mr Toad) :-
To my mind," observed the Chairman of the Bench of Magistrates cheerfully, "the only difficulty that presents itself in this otherwise very clear case is, how we can possibly make it sufficiently hot for the incorrigible rogue and hardened ruffian whom we see cowering in the dock before us. Let me see: he has been found guilty, on the clearest evidence, first, of stealing a valuable motor-car; secondly, of driving to the public danger; and, thirdly, of gross impertinence to the rural police. Mr. Clerk, will you tell us, please, what is the very stiffest penalty we can impose for each of these offences? Without, of course, giving the prisoner the benefit of any doubt, because there isn't any."
The Clerk scratched his nose with his pen. "Some people would consider," he observed, "that stealing the motor-car was the worst offence; and so it is. But cheeking the police undoubtedly carries the severest penalty; and so it ought. Supposing you were to say twelve months for the theft, which is mild; and three years for the furious driving, which is lenient; and fifteen years for the cheek, which was pretty bad sort of cheek, judging by what we've heard from the witness-box, even if you only believe one-tenth part of what you heard, and I never believe more myself—those figures, if added together correctly, tot up to nineteen years—"
"First-rate!" said the Chairman.
"—So you had better make it a round twenty years and be on the safe side," concluded the Clerk.
"An excellent suggestion!" said the Chairman approvingly. "Prisoner! Pull yourself together and try and stand up straight. It's going to be twenty years for you this time. And mind, if you appear before us again, upon any charge whatever, we shall have to deal with you very seriously!"
To my mind," observed the Chairman of the Bench of Magistrates cheerfully, "the only difficulty that presents itself in this otherwise very clear case is, how we can possibly make it sufficiently hot for the incorrigible rogue and hardened ruffian whom we see cowering in the dock before us. Let me see: he has been found guilty, on the clearest evidence, first, of stealing a valuable motor-car; secondly, of driving to the public danger; and, thirdly, of gross impertinence to the rural police. Mr. Clerk, will you tell us, please, what is the very stiffest penalty we can impose for each of these offences? Without, of course, giving the prisoner the benefit of any doubt, because there isn't any."
The Clerk scratched his nose with his pen. "Some people would consider," he observed, "that stealing the motor-car was the worst offence; and so it is. But cheeking the police undoubtedly carries the severest penalty; and so it ought. Supposing you were to say twelve months for the theft, which is mild; and three years for the furious driving, which is lenient; and fifteen years for the cheek, which was pretty bad sort of cheek, judging by what we've heard from the witness-box, even if you only believe one-tenth part of what you heard, and I never believe more myself—those figures, if added together correctly, tot up to nineteen years—"
"First-rate!" said the Chairman.
"—So you had better make it a round twenty years and be on the safe side," concluded the Clerk.
"An excellent suggestion!" said the Chairman approvingly. "Prisoner! Pull yourself together and try and stand up straight. It's going to be twenty years for you this time. And mind, if you appear before us again, upon any charge whatever, we shall have to deal with you very seriously!"
Shuvi McTupya said:
Sometimes (most of the time) I really don't understand the law, particularly in instances like this.
If someone broke into my house with the intention of stealing from me, that should be at least 3 separate charges from this list : burglary, theft, trespassing, breaking and entering, criminal damage.
If I am in the house and he attacks me in order to steal from me, then a whole host of other charges should be brought against him.
The fact that someone can commit this laundry list of crimes against me and just get done for 'burglary' is a farce, especially when burglary seems to attract such soft punishment.
That must be one big cherry for so many bites. If someone broke into my house with the intention of stealing from me, that should be at least 3 separate charges from this list : burglary, theft, trespassing, breaking and entering, criminal damage.
If I am in the house and he attacks me in order to steal from me, then a whole host of other charges should be brought against him.
The fact that someone can commit this laundry list of crimes against me and just get done for 'burglary' is a farce, especially when burglary seems to attract such soft punishment.
The trespassing / 'breaking and entering' aren't crimes.
The damage, theft (it can't be theft if there's no theft like your example) are encompassed within the burglary.
Forums | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff