Property offences - robbery

Question 1

Definition of robbery (1)

Answer 1

• S8 Theft Act 1968
  o A person is guilty of robbery if he steals, and immediately before or at the time of 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 subjected to force.

Question 2

Punishment for robbery

Answer 2

• Max life imprisonment for robbery

Question 3

Two elements of robbery offence

Answer 3

1. It must be shown that D has committed theft. The mens rea and actus reus of theft must be proved
2. It must be shown that D has used or threatened to use force (put someone in fear) immediately before or at the time of the theft and in order to steal

Question 4

Element 1 of robbery (4)

Answer 4

• Corcoran v Anderton
  o Offence of robbery is complete when the theft is complete – when the appropriation is complete
  o 2 Ds tried to take handbag by force. Snatched handbag but dropped it and ran away without it. Tired to argue that the theft was not complete. Court rejected this argument saying that the theft was completed when D snatched handbag from victim and robbery was complete once the theft was complete.
• Mitchell
  o Intention to permanently deprive at the time of the appropriation must be shown
  o Ds took victims car as getaway car, abandoned car later. Only a few miles away from where taken it was left and was not concealed in any way. Court found there was no theft as there was no intention to permanently deprive the victim of the car so could prove theft so therefore no robbery
• Zerei
  o Ds approached victim in car park. Told victim they would take his car. Ds punched victim and pulled out a knife whilst co-defendant held the victim. Keys were taken and D drove off in car. Car was found abandoned. Zerei convicted with assault occasioning actual bodily harm and robbery
  o On appeal held that judge had misdirected jury as not drawn necessary distinction between an intent to permanently deprive and taking off possession which defeated rights of owner for a shirt time. Another problem CofA found was trial judge gave impression that violent taking in itself was sufficient to show an intention to deprive and this was wrong. Also felt that trial judge had not explained to jury the difference between abandonment and intention to permanently deprive. Appeal in Zerei was allowed
• Vinall
  o Have to decide when theft occurred as it relates if robbery charge can be sustained
  o Have to make sure all elements of theft can be satisfied and force is used at the time of theft in order to steal

Question 5

Element 2 of robbery (8)

Answer 5

• Dawson v James
  o Any amount of force will do no matter how slight
  o A push or nudge causing victim to lose balance would be sufficient
• Clouden
  o Force must be used against a person with an intention to steal
• P v DPP
  o D snatched cigarette from victims hand with no physical contact between them. Question was whether mere snatching in absence of physical contact could amount to force.
  o Court held that snatching without physical contact could not amount to force used on a person.
• R v Martin
  o 2 Ds charged with robbery having snatched keys and phone from victims hand. Argued snatching did not amount to use of force against person. Judge said snatch or grab would not in all circumstances amount to use of force against a person but did feel on these facts there was sufficient evidence to allow jury to come to conclusion force had been used against person. Victim was gripping phone and keys so they would not slip from hands, and description of Ds grabbing suggested that the Ds had pulled items from the grip. This act amounted to use of force against victim.
• B & R v DPP
  o A mere threat of force is sufficient – no need to show victim was actually afraid
• James
  o Force must be used with the intention to steal – an accidental use of force cannot form the basis of a robbery charge
  o There must be a causal connection between the use or threat of force and the theft - ‘and in order to do so’
  o Appealing against conviction of robbery of taxi driver. Attack happened on taxi driver by James. Co defendant pleaded guilty of punching taxi driver in head and taking £200 in cash and other property. Whilst happening James was holding taxi driver in headlock. James denied assaulting driver or being concerned in stealing. Claimed he grabbed driver to protect him from co defendant, not to assist co defendant – appeal allowed
• R v Hale
  o Force must be used at the time of the theft or immediately before it
• R v Lockley
  o D took cans of beer from off licence and used violence when confronted by shop owner. Appealed against conviction of robbery arguing theft was completed before he used force.
  o Court said appropriation could be continuing act and therefore force was used in order to steal

Question 6

Critical commentary of theft and robbery (2)

Answer 6

• Betts
  o Offence of robbery is too wide
  o Could incorporate minimum threshold of force so low levels are thefts with force being aggravating factior taken into consideration at sentencing
  o Fair labelling – treating minimal force thefts as robberies is unfair
  o Sentencing is not representative – 7 years for theft and max life for robbery
• Ashworth
  o Robbery is too broad – covers everything from push or raised hand to most violent robbery of a security vehicle with guns fired
  o Ladder of robbery offences should be introduced to considerer fairer sentencing and fair labelling