robbery

Question 1

define robbery

Answer 1

Theft act 1968:

S8- 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

Actus reas of robbery

Answer 2

-Theft (Actus reas of theft)

-Force

-Or putting any person in fear of force

Question 3

Mens rea of robbery

Answer 3

MR of theft

-Intention to use force to steal

Question 4

R v Zerei (2012):

Answer 4

Legal principle: robbery requires a completed theft to have taken place

D and another man approached V, whom they knew, and told him that they were going to take his car. D pulled a knife, punched V and took his keys. D drove the car off, and it was later found abandoned (but undamaged) about 1km away. D convicted of robbery- quashed on appeal
CofA- trial judge had misdirected the jury on the issue of intention to permanently deprive- judge gave the impression that a forcible taking was enough to show an intent to permanently deprive- not the law.

Question 5

R v Waters (2015)

Question 6

Theft or robbery?

Answer 6

If force is used then robbery happens the moment theft is complete, as seen in Corcoran v Anderson (1980). If no theft takes place, for example V does not let go of the bag, there is attempted theft and could be charged with attempted robbery.

Question 7

Corcoran v Anderson (1980)

Answer 7

Legal principle: when force is used to steal, the moment a theft is complete there is a robbery.

One of the defendants hit a woman in the back and tugged her bag, she let go of the bag and it fell to the ground, the Ds ran off without the bag (she was screaming and attracting attention). It was held that the theft was complete, so the Defendents were guilty of robbery.

Question 8

Force or threat of force:

Answer 8

There must be a degree of force, this can be seen in R v Dawson and James (1976), this was confirmed in R v Clouden (1987)

So using force on a victim on the property that the victim is holding can be considered force on the victim, but it may not be if the property is just resting on the victim (P v DPP (2012))

Question 9

R v Dawson and James (1976):

Answer 9

Legal principle: even a small amount of force can be a robbery.

One of the defendants pushed the victim causing him to lose his balance which enabled the other defendant to take his wallet, they were convicted of robbery. CofA held that force was an ordinary word, and it was for the jury to decide if there had been force.

Question 10

R v Clouden (1987):

Answer 10

(used legal principle of R v Dawson and James)

The court of appeal held that D was guilty of robbery when he had wrenched a shopping basket from the victim’s hand, the Court held that the trial judge was right to leave the question of whether D had used force on a person to the jury.

Question 11

P v DPP (2012):

Answer 11

Legal principle: the force needs to be direct force on the victim

D snatched a cigarette from the Vs hand without V in any way. It was held that as there had been no direct contact between D and V, it could not be said that force had been used ‘on a person’ and therefore D was not guilty of robbery.

Question 12

Threat of force:

Answer 12

So, if a victim is unaware of the force, there is no robbery, only theft i.e. pickpocketing

However, fear of force is sufficient if the victim is aware of it.

The victim does not have to be frightened; it is enough that the defendant is trying to cause fear.

Question 13

B and R v DPP (2007):

Answer 13

Legal principle: There was no need to show that V felt threatened, they only have to seek to put any person in fear of being then and there subjected to force

V, a 16-year-old schoolboy, was stopped by 5 other schoolboys. They asked for his mobile phone and money, and this happened, 5 or 6 boys joined the 1st 5 and surrounded the V. No serious violence was used but he was pushed, and his arms held whilst he was searched.
D’s appealed against their convictions for robbery on the basis that no force had been used and the victim hadn’t felt threatened-
Divisional Court upheld convictions for robbery on the grounds that:
. There was no need to show that the victim felt threatened- s8 of TA68 states that robbery can be committed if the D ‘seeks to out any person in fear if being then and there subjected to force’;
. There could be an implied threat of force; in this case surrounding the victim may create such a threat;
. In any event, there was some limited force used by holding and pushing the victim

Question 14

‘On any person’:

Answer 14

The person threatened does not need to be the person the property is taken from

An example is an armed robbery where customers are seized and threatened to make bank workers get money from the safe

It does not matter that it is not the customers property

Question 15

Force immediately before or at the time of the theft:

Answer 15

There are two issues with this description

How immediate is immediately before?

For example, a gang attacks a bank official for the safes code, the gang then drives back to steal the money. Is this still robbery?

When is the theft complete?

Question 16

R v Hale (1979)

Answer 16

Legal principle: force needs to be before or during the theft

The Ds forced their way into the victim’s house, one put his hand over Vs mouth and the other went upstairs and took a jewelry box. They tied up V then left.

Here there was force immediately before the theft when one of the ds put his hand over Vs mouth. Tying up the V could also be force in order to steal as the theft was still ongoing.

Question 17

R v Lockley (1995)

Answer 17

Legal principle: Hale, theft can be a continuing act

The defendant had been caught shoplifting by a security guard. He used force on the security guard to escape. He was convicted of robbery and appealed contending that the case of Gomez had impliedly overruled Hale on the point relating to the appropriation being a continuing act.
Held- Appeal dismissed. Hale was still good law, and appropriation is a continuing act. Force used to escape is thus treated as force used to steal, and his conviction was upheld.

Question 18

Force in order to steal:

Answer 18

The force must be used in order to steal, no other purpose.

For example, having an argument, punching someone, seeing money in their pocket and deciding to take it, this is not a robbery.