1B.4.2 Robbery Flashcards
What act governs the law on robbery?
Section 8 - Theft Act 1968
Definition of robbery
The defendant steals, and immediately before or at the time of doing so, he uses force on any person or puts or seeks to put any person in fear of being subjected to force.
Mens rea of robbery
There are two elements to the mens rea of robbery.
The defendant must have:
- Had the mens rea for theft
- Intended to use force to steal
Actus reus of robbery
The elements of the actus reus which must be proved for robbery are:
- theft
- force or putting or seeking to put any person in fear of force
Actus reus of robbery:
What are the two conditions on force?
There are two conditions on the force:
1) It must be immediately before or at the time of theft.
2) It must be in order to steal.
What does “steals” means?
A completed theft (as shown by the case of Waters).
All the elements of theft have to be present. If any one of them is missing then there is no robbery, just as there would be no theft.
Case: Waters
[Stealing]
R v Waters (2015)
D snatched the V’s phone, saying the victim can have to back if her friend would speak to him.
Held: no intention to permanently deprive, so no theft, and therefore no robbery.
[Stealing]
Corcoran v Anderton (1980)
One of the Ds hit a woman in the back and tugged at her bag. She let go of the bag and it fell to the ground. The Ds ran off without the bag (because the woman was screaming and attracting attention). It was held that the theft was complete, so the Ds were guilty of robbery.
What is force (or threat of force)?
Force or threat of force. The amount of force can be small.
This is clearly shown by the case of R v Dawson and James – later confirmed in R v Clouden (1987).
[Force]
R v Clouden (1987)
D wrenched a shopping basket from V’s hand.
Court of Appeal held: force was sufficient for robbery. Jury to decide whether there is force.
[Force]
R v Dawson and James (1976)
D1 nudged the victim in back so he lost balance. D2 took v’s wallet. Force used was sufficient to be robbery.
The word ‘force’ does not require violence – it is up to the decision of the jury.
[Force]
P v DPP (2012)
D snatched cigarette from V’s hand. There was no contact and therefore no force ‘on a person’ so D is not guilty.
Legal principle: Not guilty of robbery if there was no contact.
Does a threat of force need fear?
No - Robbery is also committed even if the victim is not actually frightened by the D’s actions or words.
If the D seeks to put the victim in fear of being subjected to force, this element of robbery is present.
So if the victim is a plain-clothes policeman put there to tap the D and is not frightened, the fact that the D sought to put the victim in fear is enough. B and R v DPP (2007) illustrates this point, and the fact that the amount of force does not have to be great.
[Force]
B & R v DPP (2007)
The victim, a schoolboy aged 16, was stopped by 5 other school boys. They asked for his mobile phone and money. As this was happening, another 5 boys joined the first 5 and surrounded the victim. No serious violence was used against him, but he was pushed and his arms were held while he was searched.
Court of Appeal held there was no need to show that the victim felt threatened, the D only has to seek to put any person in fear of being subjected to force.
Force immediately before or at the time of the theft
This requires deciding when a theft is completed, so that the force is ‘at the time of stealing’.
This was considered in R v Hale (1979), and the decision was followed in R v Lockley (1995).
