- Created by: georgia.wise5
- Created on: 26-04-19 14:35
R v Robinson
Defendant was owed £7 by a woman.
Defendant went to ask for it, got in fight with womans husband
During fight a fiver fell out of husbands pocket.
Defendant picked it up and keppt it.
Convicted of robbery and it was appealed.
Conviction quashed as defendant honestly believed he was entitled to the money.
Corcoran v Anderton
Two defendants knocked woman to ground and took handbag
She screamed and held onto bag - they let go and ran off
Convicted of robbery but appealed as at no time did they have sole control of it.
Conviction upheld though.
An appropriation had taken place with relevent dishonest intent to permanently deprive
It was irelevant whether they left empty handed or not
R v Hale
Two defendants broke into womans home
One took jewellery, after taking they tied her up
They were convicted of robbery and appealed on grounds that force came after the appropriation of the jewellery.
Didnt come within being immediately before or at time of stealing
Convictions upheld and appropriation veing a continuing act
Eveleigh LJ: "To say the conduct is over and done with as soon as he laid hands on the property is contrary to common-sense and to the natural meaning of the words. The act of appropriation does not cease. It is a continuous act and it is a matter for the jury to decide whether or not the appropriation has finished."
R v Lockley
Defendant caught shop lifting
Used foced on security guard in order to escape
Convicted of robbery appealed on grounds of point of law in Gomez impliedly overturning Hale on point of appropriation being a continuing act
Conviction upheld, Hale stood and appropriation is continuing act
Force used in order to escape thus treated as force in order to steal
R v Vinall
Two kids riding bikes, one defendant shouted abuse and punched one of them off the bike so the kid ran off leaving his bike.
The two defendants ran after him, one went back to take the bike. Police were called and bike was found 50 yards from where it was taken.
Convicted of robbery, appealed saying they didnt use force to steal the bike, more stealing it as an afterthought. Also argued they had no intention to permanently deprive since it had been left in open space where it could be easily found.
Convictions quashed due to mis-direction. Judge asked jury to consider whether defendants had intention to permanently deprive when they abandoned the bike. Sufficient charge for theft, not robbery.
R v Dawson and James
One of defendants nudged a man so it was easier for the other to take wallet from his pockets
Jury convicted both of robbery, they appealed saying a nudge didnt constitute force
Conviction upheld - jury entitled to decide what force has been used
R v Clouden
NO REQUIREMENT THAT FORCE IS DIRECTLY APPLIED TO A PERSON
Defendant took a shopping bag from a womans grasp
-Didnt physically touch the woman
It was held that force used on bag was sufficient to amount to force on a person.