Robbery Essay Model Answer

• Prima facie, the defendant (state name) may be liable for robbery. Robbery is contained in s.8 of the Theft Act 1968 which 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, puts or seeks to put any person in fear of being then and there subjected to force.'
• To be guilty of robbery, there must have been a completed theft committed by the defendant; R v Robinson.
• Theft is defined under s.1 of the Theft Act 1968 as 'dishonestly appropriating property belonging to another with the intention of permanently depriving the other of it.'
• The actus reus is set out in sections 3-5 and the mens rea in sections 2 and 6.
• Next, to satisfy robbery, the question of force against the person must be established. Case law suggests that this can be minimal, but it must be sufficient to be noticeable and it is a matter for the jury to decide. In Dawson & James, a nudge was sufficient; in Clouden, force directed at a handbag was sufficient. The person threatened also does not need to be the person from whom the theft occurs not the victim need to be scared; B & R v DPP.
• Force can be actual force, or it can be the threat of force which can be spoken or implied (gestures) ad illustrated in R v Bentham.
• The next element of robbery is that the force or threat of force must be used immediately before or at the time of the theft and in order to commit the theft. The courts can regard this as a continuing act as in R v Lockely.
• Finally, the defendant must have had the mens rea for theft and robbery meaning that they have dishonestly appropriated the property and intended to permanently deprive the V of it.
• The defendant must also have intended to use the force, ie the defendant must have wanted/desired to use the force in order to steal.
• In conclusion, the defendant is/is not guilty of robbery. If convicted, then as robbery is an indictable offence, the defendant could face a maximum sentence of life imprisonment.