D took money from v using force, as v owed his wife the money
1 of 14
Why was D not guilty in this case?
Because he had a legal right to the property
2 of 14
What case contrasts Robinson?
Forrester
3 of 14
What happened in this case?D
D believed his landlord kept his deposit for false reasons, so he took items to compensate and used forced when v tried to intervene
4 of 14
What is the case that confirms that d does not have to leave with the property they forced from v?
Corcoran & Anderton
5 of 14
What happened in the case of Dawson & James?
D nudged v so he lost his balance, and he stole his wallet
6 of 14
What does this case confirm?
It confirms that nudging is sufficient force for robbery
7 of 14
What is the case where d wrenched v's bag from their grasp, which is enough force for robbery?
Clouden
8 of 14
What does the case of Hale confirm?
It confirms that a continuing act will be accepted for robbery, and it is for the jury to decide if the theft is complete
9 of 14
What happened in the case of Lockley?
D took cans of lager & used force when confronted, which the court held that the theft was still occuring when the force was used, which was sufficient for robbery
10 of 14
What case contrasted this?
Atakpu & Abrahams
11 of 14
Did the theft take place before force was used in this case?
The theft occurred before the force was used
12 of 14
What is the case where d demanded specific property, so d grabbed it but v admitted he was not scared?
B & R v DPP
13 of 14
Did the court say that v admitting they were not scared matter?
The court said that admitting they are scared does not matter
14 of 14
Other cards in this set
Card 2
Front
Why was D not guilty in this case?
Back
Because he had a legal right to the property
Card 3
Front
What case contrasts Robinson?
Back
Card 4
Front
What happened in this case?D
Back
Card 5
Front
What is the case that confirms that d does not have to leave with the property they forced from v?
Comments
No comments have yet been made