Property offence - Robbery Flashcards
Legal definition of Robbery
A person is guilty of robbery if he steals, and immediately before or at the time of the 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 subject to force.
What are the Actus Reus elements and the Mens Rea elements of robbery?
Actus Reus:
Force (or fear of force)
To any person
At time or immediately before the theft
Mens Rea:
Intentional use of fear
Defining Robbery
Force (used to commit) theft = Robbery
or
Theft + Force = Robbery
The Actus Reus of robbery
- What must be done? - 1. Theft
- How must it be done? 2. Using force or fear
- To whom must force be applied? 3. To anyone
- When must force be applied? 4. Immediately before or at the time of theft.
Must be done through theft
Must be done through using force or fear of force
Force must be applied immediately before or at the time of theft
Force can be applied to anyone
Force
The level of force may be minimal e.g pushing/jostling (As well as more serious violence) - Dawson (1977) 64 Cr app R 170 (CA) http://www.e-lawresources.co.uk/R-v-Dawson-and-James.php
Force may be applied to the person ro their property e.g grabbing a handbag without the owner - Clouden (1987) https://www.lawteacher.net/cases/r-v-clouden.php
Fear of force is enough. (Look out for express threats. ‘Given me that or else’ or implied threats - menacing behaviour - that have induced fear in the victim.
Expressed threat - This is verbal and have told them to do something
Implied threat - This is were you could go to hit your victim
Force must be used to facilitate the theft. (The essemce of robbery is that force is used to commit theft - so there must be a casual link between the theft and the force.)
Any person
The force used to steal does not need to be applied to the actual owner of the property (as this would be too narrow a definition)
Imagine a bank robbery - the employees are threatened but are clearly not the owners of the property.
This is why the definition of robbery (the theft act 1968) refers to ‘any person’
Immediately before or at the time
As robbery requires that force is used in order to steal, the use of force must precede or coincide with the theft. Force used after the theft is complete cannot have been instrumental in committing theft. Despite the logic of this position, it limited the scope of robbery by placing situations in which the defendant used violence to get away after theft outside the offence,
R V Hale (1978)
http://www.e-lawresources.co.uk/R-v-Hale.php
Facts:
The defendant’s accomplice stole jewellery whilst the defendant remained downstairs with the owner of the house. He tied her to a chair and threatened to harm her child if she called the police after they left. He argued that the force occurred after the theft so he could not be liable for robbery.
Held:
The convictions were upheld as the appropriation of the jewellery was a continuing act.
- Eveleigh LJ: “To say the conduct is over and with as soon as he laid hands on the property is contrary to common-sense and to the natural meaning of the words. The act of appropriation does not cease. It is a continuous act and it is a matter for the jury to decide whether or not the appropriation has finished”.
https://digestiblenotes.com/law/criminal_cases/theft_and_robbery.php
Immediately before or at the time
Do not dismiss situations in which force is used after theft is complete without considering whether there is a continuing appropriation. If applying Hale you conclude there is nor robbery, the defendant may still be liable for theft and non0 fatal offence.
Establishing Mens Rea:
This combines the Mens Rea of theft with an intention to use force in order to steal.
Dishonesty: Ivey V Genting Casinos (2017)
Therefore, the test for mens rea is:
- Dishonesty
- Intention permanently deprive (R v Lloyd (1985)) - deprive only if value had been diminshed
Intent to use force
