Robbery

Definition

• Theft Act 1968 s8 - 'a person is guilty of robbrry if he steals, and immeidately 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'

AR:

• Steals
• Uses force/threat of force
• On any person
• Immediately before/at the time
• In order to steal

• Robbery = aggravated theft
  • D must have committed theft (AR + MR) to have committed robbery
• No theft = No robbery (even if D used force to take the property)

Robinson

• V's wife owed D £7
• When D saw V, he threatened him w/knife
• They tussled and £5 fell from V's pocket. D took it + claimed he was entitled to extra £2
• Conviction quashed:
  • Tiral Judge: D had to honestly believe he was entiitled to get money that way
  • Appeal: If D had a genuine belief that he had a legal right to the money, actions were not dishonest
    • -> not theft -> not robbery

Corcoran v Anderton (1980) 

• D1 hit V + tugged her bag
• V let bag go + fell to ground
• D's ran off w/out bag because V was screaming
• Held: theft complete, so D's guilty of robbery
  • Theft complete on basis of momentary appropriation

• D must have used or threatened to use force (in order to steal).
• Force must be used immediately before or at time of stealing - Corcoran v Anderton

Dawson and James    +

• D1 pushed V, who then lost balance. D2 then took his wallet. Convicted of robbery
• Held: conviction upheld.
  • CA: 'force' = ordinary word + for jury to decide if there had been force

P and others v DPP (2012)

• Snatching cigerrette from fingers of V was not force, so no robbery
• Case fell 'squarely' on side of pickpotteting

• s8 - includes where D 'puts or seeks to put any person in fear of being then and there subjected to force'
  • This implies two things:
    • a theat of future force would not satisfy s8
    • D need only seek (intend) to put V in fear of force

B and R v DPP (2007)

• 2 Ds surrounded V + took various items from him
• Ds convicted of robbery
• Ds appealed, as V said that he did not feel threatened or scared
• Appeal dismissed: V being in fear = irrelevent.
  • What matters is that Ds sought to put V in fear of force

Bentham (2005) 

• D broke into V's house + fingers in pockets to look like a gun. Demanded money (which V gave him)on threat to shoot 
• D should not have put V in fear of being 'then and there' subjected to force
• Only fingers makes no difference

• Usually the same person as the one who the theft has been committed against
  • However, robbery is no limitted to this situation
    • If V threatens V and takes jewellery belonging to V's wife,this is also robbery

Clouden (1987)

• D took bag from V's grasp
• CA: so long as there is sufficient 'force', then this must be used 'on any person'
  • CA expanded this: 'force' can be used against property held up by V as well as the V himself
    • Applying force to bag = applying force to person

• If force was not used in order to steal, any later theft is not robbery
  • However, this has been widely interpretted in Hale

R v Hale

• 2 Ds broke into V's home. They stole some jewellery + then tied V up
• Convicted of robbery
• Appealed on grounds that force had come after appropriation of the jewellery
  • Force not used in order to steal
• Appeals dismissed: appropriation of jewellery = continuing act

MR requirements:

• Dishonesty (same as theft)
• intention to permanently deprive (same as theft)
• Must intend to use force to steal