Robbery Flashcards
- D may be liable for robbery, defined in…
D may be liable for robbery, defined in Section 8 of the Theft Act 1968 as stealing, and immediately before or at the time of stealing, and in order to steal, using force or threatening force.
- The ACTUS REUS is theft, plus…
The ACTUS REUS is theft, plus the use or threat of force, at the time of stealing, and in order to steal.
- Firstly, there must be a theft, defined in…
Firstly, there must be a theft, defined in S.1 as the dishonest appropriation of property belonging to another.
Here under S.3 there is an appropriation (Morris, Lawrence, Hinks) because there is an assumption of V’s rights [eg. When D takes V’s purse].
IF RELEVANT: Appropriation can take place even if D leaves the property behind, (Corcoran and Anderton), which is what D does here.
Under S.4 the property (Kelly and Lindsay) is [eg. A purse, which is tangible personal property].
Under S.5 the property did belong to another (Hall, Webster) because [eg. V had possession or control of the purse].
- Secondly, there must be…
Secondly, there must be a completed theft - Corcoran v Anderton.
Here…
- Thirdly, there must be the use…
Thirdly, there must be the use or threat of force. The Jury must decide what constitutes force, and the amount of force can be small, (Dawson and James), with no need for direct contact, (Clouden). However, force must be more than trivial (P v DPP). The force can be against any person, not necessarily against the victim of the theft.
Here…
- The threat of force can be against…
The threat of force can be against any person not necessarily the victim of the theft, force need not be actually used, and the victim need not be in actual fear, (B and R v DPP).
- Fourthly, the use or threat of force…
Fourthly, the use or threat of force must be immediately before or at the time of the stealing, including a ‘continuing act’, (Hale).
Here…
- Fifthly, the use or threat of force…
Fifthly, the use or threat of force must be used in order to steal, as in Lockley.
Here…
- The MENS REA is the mens rea of theft plus…
a. Firstly, the mens rea of theft under S.2 is that…
b. Firstly and Secondly (TWO PART TEST)
The MENS REA is the mens rea of theft plus an intention to use or threaten force.
Firstly, the Mens Rea of theft under S.2 is that D must be DISHONEST. The 2 stage test established in Ivey v Genting Casinos is used.
Firstly, the jury must decide what was the actual knowledge or belief of D as to the facts (a subjective test), and
Secondly, in that context, the jury must decide whether D’s behaviour would be regarded as dishonest by the reasonable, ordinary, decent person (an objective test).
Here…
- [IF RELEVANT] D may not be guilty of robbery as he…
[IF RELEVANT] D may not be guilty of robbery as he had an honest belief that he was entitled to the money (Robinson).
- Also, under S.6 there is an intent to…
Also, under S.6 there is an intent to permanently deprive by disposing of or treating the property as his own (DPP v Lavender, Raphael, Lloyd) because [eg. D ran away with the purse].
- Secondly, there was a specific/direct intention to use [or threaten] force, defined in…
Secondly, there was a specific/direct intention to use [or threaten] force, defined in Mohan as deciding to bring about a consequence, when he [eg. deliberately pushed V over / waved a knife around in a threatening way].
- TO CONCLUDE…
TO CONCLUDE, D will be guilty of robbery.
