robbery

• Robbery definition


  Section 8 of the Theft Act 1968

  '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'.
• Actus reus 


  • A completed theft - defined in s.1-6
  • Using force on someone or seeking to put a person in fear of force being used - defined in s.8
• Mens rea


  • The mens rea for theft - 'dishonesty' as defined in s.2 +'intention to permanently deprive' as defined in s.6
  • Intention to use force to steal - defined in s.8
• Actus reus - A completed theft

  Sections 1 to 6 of the Theft Act 1968

  For a robbery to have been committed, there must be a completed theft.

  This means that all elements of theft must be present as part of the robbery.
• Actus reus - a completed theft

  If any elements of a theft is missing, then there cannot be a robbery, even if there was force used.

  Case - R v Walters.
• Actus reus - A completed theft

  If there are missing elements of a theft, then potentially you could charge a defendant with attempted theft, and by default an attempted robbery if force was still present.

  Case - Corcoran v Anderton
• Actus reus - Force or Threat of force

  Section 8 of the Theft Act 1968

  Alongside the completed theft, there must be force or the threat of force.
• Actus reus - Force of Threat of Force

  The amount of force used/threatened can be small (such as a push)

  Case - R v Dawson and James
• Actus reus - Force or threat of force

  Force does not need to be applied. A threat is also sufficient. For the threats, the victim does not have to fear force. The Courts instead focus solely on whether the defendant tried to make the victim fear force.

  Case - B and R v DPP
• Actus reus - Force or threat of force

  The force used or threat of force needs to occur 'immediately' before or at the time of the theft.

  Case - R v Hale
• Actus reus - Force or threat of force

  Where the theft is a continuing act, then force used afterwards could amount to a robbery (e.g. using force to escape)

  Case - R v Lockley
• Actus reus - Force or threat of force

  The force/threatened force that was used must relate to the stealing. If the force used was not for this purpose, then it cannot be a robbery, even if theft has occurred.
• Actus reus - Force or threat of force

  The use of force or force threatened can be 'on any person'. This means that the person threatened could be different from the person who experienced the theft.
• Mens rea - Mens rea of theft

  Sections 2 and 6 of the Theft Act 1968

  Part of the mens rea of a robbery is that the defendant must have the mens rea of theft.

  Dishonesty - s.2

  Intention to permanently deprive - s.6
• Mens rea - Intention to use force to steal


  Section 8 of the Theft Act 1968

  We must also consider whether there was an intention to use force to steal.

  We check this through direct and oblique intention
• Mens rea - Intention to use force to steal


  Direct intention - where our defendant's main aim/purpose matches the desired consequence - R v Mohan

  Oblique intention - This is where our defendant's main aim/purpose does not match the consequences. Therefore, we need to test whether 1) the consequence was virtually certain, and 2) whether the defendant foresaw that consequence themselves - R v Woollin
• Robbery - Sentencing


  Section 8 of the Theft Act 1968

  'A person guilty of robbery, or of an assault with intention to rob, shall on conviction on indictment be liable to imprisonment for life' - up to life