Please enable JavaScript.

Coggle requires JavaScript to display documents.

Robbery and blackmail (Theft Act 1968 s8 - robbery (1) A person is guilty…

- - - - Actus reus for theft
        
        Appropriation
        
        Property
        
        Belonging to another
        
        Corcoran v Anderton (1980) - grabbed woman's bag but failed to taken from her - argued no appropriation - court reiterated that only one element of appropriation is needed (Morris) - achieved when took hold
      - "Force"
        
        D uses force on someone
        
        R v Dawson & James - one jostled the victim while the other used the distraction to steal - amounted to robbery - force doesn't have to be substantial
        
        R v Hale - hand over victim's mouth - force doesn't have to be substantial
        
        R v Clouden - wrenched shopping bag out of victim's grasp - force to detach property can count as force on the person
        
        Or puts someone in fear of being there and then subjected to force
        
        R v DPP - fear just means making them think will be subjected to force - apprehension
        
        R v Taylor - handed bank cashier a note demanding money or would hurt the customer standing behind him - no force used against customer and not in fear - couldn't be argued that sought to put customer in fear as threat directed to bank cashier
      - "On any person"
        
        Person who loses property can be different from one on whom force is used
      - "Immediately before or at the time of stealing"
        
        R v Hale - robbed house - one put hand over victim's mouth, other took jewellery box from upstairs - afterwards tied her up - D tried to argue that tying up happened after the theft - held appropriation can be continuing act - left to jury to decide when finished
        
        R v Donaghy & Marshall (1981) - threatened taxi driver and made him drive to London - at the end of the journey they stole money from him but didn't repeat the threat - need to prove that the threat is still on victim's mind, and that D is aware of this - here they were acquitted
- - - - R v Robinson - ran into someone who owed him money - some fell out of wife's pocket - took it but argued could be no dishonesty because truly believed the money was his - court agreed this was an issue - same problems can arise as in cases of basic theft
        
        If force accidental/coincidental to theft there is no robbery - may be another reason Robinson acquitted
- - - - He has reasonable grounds for making the demand, AND
      - That the use of menaces are a PROPER means of enforcing the demand
      - Both the demand and the menace must be warranted - burden of proof on prosecution, but they only need proof that one is unwarranted
        
        Based on D's belief, but not completely subjective - "proper" element is objective - belief as to how others regard behaviour
        
        Where menace involves a crime, this will never be warranted - R v Harvey, Ulyett & Plummer
  - - - "Gain" includes keeping what one already had - s34(2)(a)(i)
      - "Loss" includes not getting what one would otherwise get - s34(2)(a)(ii)
- - - - Making a demand
        
        Demand can be express or implied - R v Collister & Warhurst
        
        Police officers arranged to meet suspect later in car park - there asked him "what have you got for us" - gave them money - tried to argue that no demand was made, but implication clear
      - With menaces
        
        Demand must be accompanied by menaces
        
        R v Lawrence & Pomeroy - "The word 'menace' is an ordinary English word which in most cases needs no elaboration"
        
        However lots of cases do elaborate
        
        Thorne v Motor Trade Association - a threat of "any action detrimental or unpleasant to the person addressed"
        
        R v Clear - argues objective element - a threat "of such a nature and extent that the mind of an ordinary person of normal stability and courage might be influenced... so as to accede unwillingly to the demand" - doesn't matter how that particular victim takes it
        
        However can take into account factors about the particular victim that makes them vulnerable to the threat, if D is aware of them - Clear - R v Garwood
        
        Irrelevant whether threat can be carried out - s21(2) - R v Lambert