Robbery

• Introduction


  -"a theft which is aggrevated by the use of force or threat of force"

  -actus reus and mens rea of theft is satusfied

  -section 8 of theft aft 1968 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 puts or seeks to put any person in fear of being then and there subjected to force"

  -maximum life sentance
• Completed theft


  -appropriation,property and belonging to another

  -R v waters is example
• forcing or seeking to put in fear of force

  prosecution prove if force of threat- jury decide

  -can be small amount of force as shown in R v dawson and james

  -confirmed in R v clouden

  -issue of force also shown in P v Dpp

  -threat of force

  -threatening force also considered

  -b and r v dpp- not actually need to be frustrated -r v tenant-just enough to seek to cause fear no need actual fear
• Any person


  -no need to be same person who was threatened to who theft occured
• immedietley before or at the time of the theft

  immedietley before or at the time of the theft

  -The D must have used force, or aimed to the put the victim in fear of force, immediately before or at the time of the theft for a robbery to have taken place.

  Two issues:

  Issue 1 - How immediate does 'immediately before' does have to

  be?

  
  

  Issue 2 - At what point is the theft completed, so that the force is not 'at the time of stealing'?

  This case considered this point......

  R v Hale (1978-continuing act

  R v lockley-force in order to escape is force to steal
• Force in order to steal

  section 8 must be used in order to steal -jury decide-r v Dawson and James
• Mens rea of theft


  dishonesty

  -intention to permently deprived. -dishonesty-r v Robinson-not completed as no mr