Robbery and blackmail
Theft Act 1968 s8 - robbery
1) 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
2) A person guilty of robbery... shall on conviction of indictment be liable to imprisonment for life
Actus Reus
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
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
Robbery - Mens Rea
Mens rea for theft
Dishonestly
With intention permanently to deprive
Intention to use force in order to steal
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
R v Clouden - wrenched shopping bag out of victim's grasp - force to detach property can count as force on the person
Theft Act 1968 s21 - blackmail
A person is guilty of blackmail if, with a view to a gain for himself or another or with intent to cause loss to another, he makes an unwarranted demand with menaces
Actus Reus
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
Blackmail - Mens Rea
Unwarranted - distinguishes between good and bad behaviour
S21(1)(a) & (b) - the demand with menaces will be unwarranted UNLESS D BELIEVES that...
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
"With a view to gain for himself or another or with intent to cause a loss to another"
Gain or loss defined in s34(2)(a) - requires gain or loss in money or property
"Gain" includes keeping what one already had - s34(2)(a)(i)
"Loss" includes not getting what one would otherwise get - s34(2)(a)(ii)