Robbery Flashcards
‘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’
S.8(1)
S.8(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’
Elements of robbery
- a completed theft
- Uses force or seeks to put any person in fear of force
- Intention to use the force to steal
Corcoran v Anderton 1980
At the moment the theft occurs, there must be a coincidence of AR and MR
If the theft is not completed, D can be charged with what?
Attempted robbery
Zerei 2012
- taking a car by force does not prove intention to permanently deprive
- The facts of the case (where the car is left and after how long) can be evidence of intention
- taking a car by force does not prove intention to permanently deprive
- The facts of the case (where the car is left and after how long) can be evidence of intention
Zerei 2012
Taking vehicles without consent is charged under what?
A separate offence rather than theft/robbery
Robinson 1977
Same 3 defences of honesty as in theft apply
Same 3 defences of honesty as in theft apply
Robinson 1977
What happens if theft is not proved?
Cannot be charged for robbery
Ref (No1 and 2 of 1979) 1979
conditional intention is sufficient to prove attempted robbery
conditional intention is sufficient to prove attempted robbery
Ref (No1 and 2 of 1979) 1979
B and R v DPP 2007
- V does not have to be afraid of D’s actions
- Not necessary to apply the force, threatening words or gestures are sufficient
- V does not have to be afraid of D’s actions
- Not necessary to apply the force, threatening words or gestures are sufficient
B and R v DPP 2007
P v DPP 2012
The force must be against the person, not the property
The force must be against the person, not the property
P v DPP 2012
In what case was force sufficient to affect the person, so there was a robbery?
Clouden 1987
Clouden 1987
Force was sufficient to affect the person, so there was a robbery
Hale 1979
Using force against V in order to get away rather than to steal is sufficient because the theft was still continuing
Using force against V in order to get away rather than to steal is sufficient because the theft was still continuing
Hale 1979
Atakpu and Abrahams 1994
The longer the time between the appropriation and the application of force the less chance that the force was applied in order to steal
The longer the time between the appropriation and the application of force the less chance that the force was applied in order to steal
Atakpu and Abrahams 1994
What kind of force is insufficient?
accidental
What is irrelevant about the application of force?
that the V of force/attempted force is not the V of theft as long as force is applied to a V in order to carry out a theft
