Robbery

• s6(1) 


  A person appropriating property belonging to another without meaning the other permanently to lose the thing itself is nevertheless to be regarded as having the intention of permanently depriving the other of it: 

  • if his intention is to treat the thing as his own to dispose of regardless of the other’s rights 
  • if borrowing or lending is for a period and in circumstances making it equivalent to an outright taking of disposal. 
• R v Raphael (2008) 


  Intent to treat as own. 

  • Defendant’s took the victims car by force and said he could buy it back. 
  • They had the intention to permanently deprive as they were only going to return the vehicle on the condition the payment was received. 
• DPP v J (2002) 


  Taking and destroying property can amount to an intention to permanently deprive. 

  • Defendant borrowed and broke headphones then gave them back.
• Lloyd (1985) 


  • Defendant worked in a cinema. 
  • He took some films, copied them and returned them. 
  • Court held no thefts as this did not amount to an intention to permanently deprive. 
• Velumyl (1989) 


  • Defendant took money from a safe at work on a Saturday and lent to a friend. 
  • He returned the money on Monday. 
  • In the meantime there was a spot check which revealed the money was gone. 
  • Theft? 
  • Yes, as he had intended to put back different money so IPD for original money. 
• Lavender (1994) 


  • Defendant, asked the council to replace damaged doors but they refused. 
  • Defendant took two doors from another unoccupied council property with intent to use them until the council replaced the doors.  
  • Was theft as there was an intention to permanently deprive. 
• Robbery s8(1) Theft Act 


  Must have been a completed theft for robbery to have been committed. 
• Actus reus 


  • The actus reus of theft; and 
  • Use of force or 
  • Seeking to put any person in fear of subjection to force in order to steal; 
  • Immediately before or at the time of stealing. 
• What amounts to force or threat of force on a person? 


  The word force does not have a specific definition but the force or the threat of force  

  must be noticeable not necessarily to the victim but it would not be sufficient to be a threat of future force. 
• Dawson and James (1976) 


  Defendants jostled around the victim, with one nudging the victim who dropped  

  his wallet which they stole.  

  >Court held this was enough force for robbery. The word force is to be given its  

  ordinary meaning and will be left to the jury to decide whether enough force was 

  used/threatened. 
• B and R v DPP (2007) 


  >Does not matter whether the victim felt fear. It is the intent of the defendant 

  that matters. 

  >Five boys stopped victim and asked for his mobile and money. He refused and  

  another five boys appeared and took his money. 

  >Court held that they had intended to make the victim fear violence and that was 

  enough for robbery. 

   
• Clouden (1987) 


  Does not have to be direct force on the victim. 

  >Defendant followed a woman carrying a basket.  

  >He grabbed her from behind and ran off with the basket. 

  >The courts held that this was sufficient force for robbery. 
• When does the force or threat of force have to take place? 


  Generally immediately before or at the time of the stealing but: 
• Hale (1978) 


  >Defendants entered a house and took a jewellery box then tied up the occupant. 

  >The court held the act of stealing can be a continuing act. 

  >In this case the appropriation for theft was still continuing when the victim was 

  tied up. 

  >Also case of Lockley where the defendant grabbed beer from a shop and used it 

  to escape. 
• What connection must there be between the force and the theft? 

  The force or the threat of force must be used in order to steal for it to be a robbery. 
• Mens rea 

  • The mens rea of theft and 
  • Intention as to the use or threat of force in order to steal