Robbery

• Robbery = Defendant steals (so all elements of theft needed) and uses or seeks to use force immediately before or at the time of the theft.
• Theft Act 1968, s.8 states:

  " A person is guilty of robbery is 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 - Robbery:

  Completed Theft

  Force or Threat of Force

  Used Immediately before or at the time of the theft in order to steal

  Force used on Any Person
• Mens Rea - Robbery:

  Mens Rea of Theft

  Intent to use force to steal
• Actus Reus - Completed Theft:

  • Quite simply, all elements of theft must be present before there can be a robbery.
  • R v Robinson 1977 - D was owned £7 by a woman, so threatened her husband with a knife to get the money. He dropped a £5 note which the D took, then made another threat for the remaining £2. D was not guilty of robbery. The theft was not complete as D had not been dishonest - he was owned the money.
• Actus Reus - Completed Theft:

  • Corcoran v Anderton 1980 - D pushed a woman in the back then tugged her handbag off her shoulder. The bag dropped to the floor and D ran off without the bag as the woman started screaming. D was guilty of robbery. The theft was complete as the appropriation happened the moment D tugged on her bag. He had intention to deprive even if he could not carry that out.
• Actus Reus - Force or Threat of Force:

  • D must use force or seek to put any person in fear of being subjected to force.
  • R v Dawson & James 1976 - The Defendant nudged the victim which allowed a second defendant to take the victim's wallet. Held nudging IS enough to class as force, D guilty.
• Actus Reus - Force or Threat of Force:

  • B & R v DPP 2007 - V surrounded by group of boys demanding his phone and money, snatched crisps off him and took his watch and wallet out of his coat. V said he didn't feel personally scared or threatened - held D was guilty, this was still classed as force even if the victim was not personally scared.
• Actus Reus - Force or Threat of Force:

  • P v DPP 2012 - D snatched a cigarette from V's hand without touching D at all. D was not guilty - this was simple theft, not robbery - as no force was used.
• Actus Reus - Immediately before & in order to steal:

  • The force must be used immediately before the theft, and in order to carry out the theft.
  • R v Hale 1978 - D broke into a woman's house, took her jewellery then tied her up. D tried to argue this meant the force came after the theft so they shouldn't be guilty. Held that the appropriation was a continuing act, so they were found guilty.
• Actus Reus - Immediately before & in order to steal:

  • R v Lockley 1995 - D was caught shoplifting and used force agaisnt a security guard in order to escape the store. D was found guilty - force used to escape is the same as force used in order to steal.
• Actus Reus - On any person:

  • The force can be used agaisnt any person and can sometimes be agaisnt property too.
  • R v Clouden 1987 - D wrenched a shopping bag from V's grasp without physically touching V. It was held that force used against the bag is the same as force used agaisnt a person, so D was guilty.
• Actus Reus - On any person:

  • Smith v Desmond 1965 - Two night watchmen (security guards) were restrained with force whilst D looted a property nearby. It was held that this was sufficient for robbery so D was guilty. This proves that the force can be used agaisnt any person.
• Mens Rea - Mens Rea of Theft:

  • D must have been both dishonest, and have the intention to permanently deprive.
  • All aspects of the mens rea of Theft apply.
  • Includes all provisions under s.6 Theft Act and under s.2 Theft Act - including things not classed as dishonest.
  • Demonstrated in: R v Forrester 1992.
• Mens Rea - Mens Rea of Theft:

  • R v Forrester 1992 - V had not returned D's £200 house deposit after moving out. D went to V's house, went in with the door open, and took items from V's house while D's friend restrained V. D claimed he was taking items to the value of £200 which he believed he was owed by V. This failed - D knew he was not entitled to take the items, even if he had been owed the money.
• Mens Rea - Intent to use force to steal:

  • D must have intended to use the force in order to steal.
  • D must use force in order to steal.
  • If force used accidentally, this is theft and not robbery.
  • If D uses force with no intention to steal, then takes property from victim who is knocked unconscious, this will not be classed as robbery - because the intention to steal di not exist when the force was used.