This was one of a number of old crimes reviewed by the king's justices in eyre, authorized to examine various types of offences infringing royal laws. There had been no previous eyre in London since 1226. Consequently, in the case of the older crimes, many of the accused were no longer to be found, or had died in prison, while many of the witnesses (including neighbours, who were expected to be in the know) had likewise died. The account of the case is a summary of key developments in the proceedings. These accounts, and possibly the proceedings themselves, showed far less interest in the motives for crimes – something hard to arrive at anyway in the frequent absence of victim (usually dead) and accused (usually disappeared) – than in which parties could be fined or what possessions of the accused or deodands (instruments by which a crime was committed, forfeit to the crown) could be confiscated.

There are several instances here indicative of the important role of private citizens, individually or collectively, in bringing wrongdoers to justice. Alice attempts a citizen's arrest on the attacker of her son, and summons the neighbourhood to her assistance – and to witness the results of the crime (so that later in court they can assist with Robert's conviction) – by raising hue-and-cry. This was probably an obligation at first, although subject to abuse – some citizens raising the hue at the slightest provocation; at the 1276 eyre, the London authorities were claiming that raising hue-and-cry and pursuing criminals was optional for a neighbourhood, and failure to do so should not result in a fine.

In 1231, however, the neighbours take responsibility for escorting Robert to where he can be secured until Adam's fate is determined. The inhabitants of the ward are collectively blamed for Robert's escape – since they cannot claim ignorance, they must accept responsibility and face a fine. There are numerous other cases among the London eyre records of the 13th century in which the community of a ward is fined for failing to report something suspicious or being ignorant of activities within ward boundaries.

Finally, reference is made to Robert's frankpledge, a group of friends or neighbours which has some responsibility for knowing the whereabouts of its members and providing mutual guarantees of good behaviour. Frankpledges were often fined by the 1244 eyre for failing in their duty. In this case Robert must have been associated with extra-mural property held by Bukerel since he belonged to Bukerel's household but was not a London resident.

By contrast, the city authorities take care to avoid any risk of being fined themselves, by arguing that Robert was not a citizen and therefore they could not be held responsible for his actions.