Robbery Flashcards
Q: What is robbery?
s8 Theft Act 1968
(1) 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
Q: What is the sentence for robbery?
Triable on indictment
Life imprisonment
What is the theft element of the offence?
For there to be a robbery, there must be a completed theft (all elements present)
The word ‘steal’ relates to the offence under s1 Theft Act 1968
Case- theft element of the offence
R v Robinson [1977]- D (owed £7 by P’s wife) approached P brandishing a knife. A fight followed and P dropped £5. D picked it up and demanded the remaining £2 owed. Allowing D’s appeal against a conviction for robbery, COA held prosecution had to prove that D was guilty of theft and would not be under TA 1968, s2(1)(a)) if he believed he had a right in law to deprive P of the money, even though he knew he was not entitled to use the knife to get it ie: there was no dishonesty
What is the time frame for robbery?
S8(1) requires that the force must be used or the threat made ‘immediately before or at the time’ of the theft
What does ‘immediately before’ mean?
There is no guidance as to what ‘immediately before’ means. Clearly, if the force used or threatened is after the offence of theft has taken place, there will be no robbery; however, theft can be a continuing offence
Case- theft is a continuing offence
R v Hale (1979)- COA stated that appropriation is a continuing act and whether it has finished or not is a matter for the jury to decide.
Hale decides that where D had assumed ownership of goods in a house, the ‘time’ of stealing is a continuing process.
It does not end as soon as the property is picked up by D and can be a continuing act so long as he is in the course of removing it from the premises.
What does ‘in order to do so’ mean?
The use or threat of force must be ‘in order’ to carry out the theft.
What does force mean?
A small amount of force used in order to accomplish a theft may change that theft into a robbery.
Some degree of force to get possession of the property is sufficient eg: a nudge.
Example of force
R v Dawson (1977)- D and 2 others surrounded V. One attacker nudged V and while he was unbalanced the other stole his wallet.
Court declined to define ‘force’ any further than to say juried would understand it readily enough.
In line with general actus reus principles, the force used by D must be used voluntarily.
Cannot be accidental force or the touching of clothing eg; pickpocket- this is not robbery
What does on any person mean?
The force used to accomplish a robbery need not be used against the owner or possessor of the property
Does force have to be used on the person or can it be used indirectly?
Force does not actually have to be used ‘on’ the person.
It may be used indirectly, for example on something that the victim is carrying and thereby transferring the force to the person
Case- indirect force
R v Clouden [1987]- COA dismissed appeal against a conviction for robbery when D had wrenched V’s shopping basket from her hand and ran off with it
Case- indirect force
P v DPP [2012]- snatching a cigarette from the hand of V was incapable of amounting to robbery. There was no evidence of direct physical contact between V and thief.
Mitting J- ‘It cannot be said that the minimum use of force required to remove a cigarette from between the fingers suffices to amount to the use of force against that person’
Is a future threat of force sufficient?
Where it is a threat of force, it must be a threat to use force on somebody then and there.
A future threat is not sufficient!!
