Robbery

Robbery

 

Robbery is defined in s8 of the Theft Act. It states:

A person is guilty of robbery 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 them  in fear of being then and there subjected to force.

 

The maximum sentence provided by s8(2) is life imprisonment. So therefore theft and force is robbery S8 Theft Act.

Background

Robbery is an aggravated form of theft and can be seen very simply as thefy with force.

The Actus Reus of robbery

1.       Theft (appropriation of property belonging to another)

2.       Force or putting or seeking to put any person in fear of force

R v Mason (1820) 168 ER 876, KB

A man D seized a gold watch from V's pocket, and pulled hard enough to break a security chain going around V's neck. Park J said this force was sufficient to amount to robbery rather than larceny at common law, and the judges of the King's Bench unanimously agreed.

 

The word force is not defined in the Act so the definition has been left to common law.  However, the force, or threat of force must be sufficient to be noticeable, but not necessarily to the victim. 

R v Dawson and James 1978

One of the defendants nudged a man so as to make it easier for the other defendant to take his wallet from his pocket. The jury convicted both of robbery and they appealed contending that nudging fell short of using force. The conviction was upheld. The word force is to be given its ordinary meaning and requires no direction to the jury. The jury were entitled to find that force had been used.

R v Hale 1979

The two defendants broke into a woman's home. One went upstairs and took some jewellery from her bedroom. After taking the jewellery the two of them tied her up. They were convicted of robbery and appealed on the grounds that the force came after they had appropriate the jewellery and thus did not come within the requirement of being immediately before or at the time of stealing. The convictions upheld. The appropriation of the jewellery was a continuing act

R v Lockley 1995

The defendant had been caught shop lifting by a security guard. He used force on the security guard in order to escape. He was convicted of robbery and appealed contending that the case of Gomez had impliedly overruled Hale on the point relating to the appropriation being a continuing act. The appeal dismissed. Hale was still good law and an appropriation is a continuing act. Force used in order to escape is thus treated as force used in order to steal and his conviction was upheld.

R v Clouden 1987

The defendant wrenched a shopping bag from a woman's grasp. He did not physically touch the woman herself. It was held that the force used on the bag was sufficient to amount to force on a person.

Mens Rea of robbery

·         Mens Rea of Theft (dishonest/IPD)

·         Intention to use force to steal

 

R v Raphael 2008

D and others were convicted of a conspiracy to rob V by forcibly taking his car and then offering him the opportunity to buy it back from them. The question arose whether this could amount to robbery, or whether since V would get his property back (albeit by having to pay for it) there was no intention permanently to deprive and hence no theft.

Sir Igor Judge P suggested that it was “hard to find a better example of such an intention” than the facts of this case. Encouraged a wide interpretation of s.6 of the Theft Act 1968

R v Robinson 1977

The defendant was owed money (£7) by a woman. He went to ask her for it and a fight developed between the defendant and the woman's husband. During the fight a £5 note dropped out of the husband's pocket. The defendant picked it up and kept it. He was convicted of robbery and appealed.it was held the conviction was quashed. There was no theft under s.2(1)(a) since the defendant had an honest belief that he was entitled to the money.

 

It also has to be established when is the offence of robbery complete?

Corcoran v Anderton 1980

The two defendants knocked a woman to the ground and grabbed her handbag. She screamed and held on to the bag. They let go of the bag and ran off empty handed. They were convicted of robbery and appealed contending that at no time did they have sole control of the bag. The convictions upheld. An appropriation had taken place with the relevant dishonest intent to permanently deprive. It was irrelevant that they left empty handed or that they never gained full control of the bag since touching property is sufficient to amount to an appropriation.