Robbery Flashcards
Corcoran v Anderton
Two Ds working together - A tugged woman’s handbag so it fell; B tried to take it.
They failed and woman ran off with her handbag.
Conviction for robbery.
Argued that there couldn’t be as no appropriation, and hence, no theft made out.
Dismissed - held that the act of tugging the bag was sufficient for appropriation + striking her in the back = force.
Thus robbery conviction upheld.
R. v Hale
Ds - took jewellery from house and after appropriation, tied up the occupants when they had started fighting back.
Argued on appeal that the force used wasn’t PROXIMATE to the theft.
Rejected argument - sent out message that s.8(1) will be interpreted broadly. - Jury will not be directed so much on technicalities on the timeline of a robbery.
In the case, the appropriation was viewed as a continuing act.
Theft Act 1968 S.8
s.b. page 51
(1) guilty 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 seeks to put that person in fear of being then subjected to force.’
(2) liable for imprisonment for life.
= THEFT WITH THE ADDED DIMENSION OF FORCE.
Must be proximity between the theft and the use of force - i.e. in order to affect the stealing.
R. v Dawson and James
Physical act of nudging someone held to be sufficient force for conviction of robbery.
R. v Forrester
Landlord owed money by property - went to property and took it - proprietary right/interest.
Then - fight - physical force.
Conviction upheld as court denied he had proprietary right.
BUT - shows that there can be NO conviction for robbery without the elements of theft being present.
G v DPP
Knocked cigarette out of victim’s mouth to distract him whilst stealing his wallet.
Held that this action was sufficient force for robbery as cigarette was ‘an extension of the victim’s person’.
(Same applies to handbags - R.v Clouden.)
