Robbery (incomplete)
- Created by: une-meduse
- Created on: 21-05-13 23:07
View mindmap
- ROBBERY S8(1)
- ACTUS REUS
- 1 THE ACTUS REUS OF THEFT
- 2 USE OF FORCE OR PUTTING OR SEEKING TO PUT ANY PERSON IN FEAR OR SUBJECTION TO FORCE IN ORDER TO STEAL IMMEDIATLEY BEFORE OR AT THE TIME OF STEALING
- FORCE OR THREAT OF FORCE MUST BE SUFFICIENT TO BE NOTICEABLE BUT NOT NECESSARILY TO THE VICTIM
- THREAT OF FUTURE VIOLENCE NOT SUFFICIENT
- DAWSON AND JAMES - FORCE IS REQUIRED FOR ROBBERY BUT THE WORD HAS NO SPECIAL MEANING, IT IS UP TO THE JURY TO DECIDE WHETHER THE DEFENDANT'S ACTIONS AMOUNTED TO FORCE
- B AND R V DPP - DOES NOT MATTER WHETHER THE DEFENDANT ACTUALLY PUT IN FEAR, IT IS THE DEFENDANTS INTENTION THAT MATTERS
- CLOUDEN - THE FORCE DOES NOT HAVE TO BE DIRECTLY TOWARDS THE VICTIM, IN THIS CASE IT WAS TO HER BAG
- BENTHAM - SO LONG AS THERE IS THE INTENTION TO CREATE FEAR, IT DOES NOT MATTER THAT THE THREAT WAS NOT REAL, IN THIS CASE THE DEFENDANT USED FINGERS INSIDE HIS JACKET TO IMMITATE A GUN
- HALE - THE ACT OF STEALING CAN BE A CONTINUING ACT, THE JURY CAN DECIDE WHEN APPROPRIATION IS COMPLETE - FORCE MUST TAKE PLACE IMMEDIATLEY AT THE TIME OR BEFORE THE STEALING
- CORCORAN AND ANDERTON - KNOCKING A HANDBAG OUT OF THE VICTIMS GRASP WITH FORCE WAS SUFFICIENT FOR THERE TO BE A ROBBERY EVEN THOUGH THE ROBBER DID NOT TAKE THE BAG
- THREAT OF FUTURE VIOLENCE NOT SUFFICIENT
- FORCE OR THREAT OF FORCE MUST BE SUFFICIENT TO BE NOTICEABLE BUT NOT NECESSARILY TO THE VICTIM
- MENS REA
- 1 - THE MENS REA OF THEFT
- INTENT OR RECKLESSNESS AS TO THE USE OR THREAT OF FORCE
- ACTUS REUS
Comments
No comments have yet been made