Robbery Flashcards
What is the definition of robbery?
S8 of the Theft Act 1968 defines robbery as using or threatening force immediately before or at the time of stealing in order to steal.
What is the actus reus of robbery?
-Completed theft
-Use or threaten force on any person
-Immediately before or at the time of the theft
-In order to steal
What is the mens rea of robbery?
Intention to use or threaten force to steal
Which case proves the need for a completed theft?
R v Robinson- if an element of theft is missing, then there can be no robbery
What amounts to using force on a person?
R v Dawson and James- force can be minimal, even a nudge can be force.
What does not amount to force on a person?
RP and others v DPP- simply taking something out of a person’s pocket or fingers. Pickpocketing has always been regarded as theft in common law.
Which case says that force can be applied indirectly through an object?
R v Clouden
How else can force be applied?
D puts or seeks to put any person in fear of being then and there subjected to force.
What did the case of B and R v DPP prove?
There can be a robbery if D puts or seeks to put any person in fear of being then and there subjected to force. If D tries to make V fear being subjected to force i.e. through actions, gestures, spoken threats, this is enough for robbery, V doesn’t actually have to feel scared.
Who must the force or threat of force be used on?
Any person. Smith v Desmond shows that this can be anyone and D doesn’t have to use or threaten force on the victim of the theft.
How has ‘at the time of the theft’ been interpreted by the courts?
Fairly broadly. R v Hale shows that theft/ appropriation can be a continuing act, in which case, any force used/ threatened during the theft will be ‘at the time of the theft’.
How has ‘immediately before’ the theft been interpreted by the courts?
There are no cases in what is meant by this but given the interpretation given to ‘at the time of the theft’, it’s possible that the courts might also interpret what counts as ‘immediately before’ the theft fairly broadly.
What does the final element of the actus reus of robbery (force must be used in order to steal) mean?
The purpose of D using/ threatening force must be to achieve the theft. If the force is unrelated to the theft, there would be no robbery.
Which case explains the principle that force must be used in order to steal?
R v Lockley- if D uses or threatens force at some point during a continuing theft, then he will be using force in order to steal. Even using force to escape can still be in order to steal.
How do you apply the mens rea of robbery to scenarios?
D needs to intend to use force in order to steal. This is basically the same as the previous element and the same evidence can be used for both.
