Please enable JavaScript.
Coggle requires JavaScript to display documents.
Chapter 6: Robbery - Coggle Diagram
Chapter 6: Robbery
- problems with the law on robbery
- uncertainty about the amount of force required
~ in Dawson and James the CoA said that 'force' was an ordinary word & the jury should be left to decide whether or not there was enough contact for force.this leaves a lot of jury discretion and could lead to inconsistent verdicts.
- problems with law on theft - see notes on theft
- the offence is too wide-ranging
~robbery can be anything from a push in order to steal a bag, to a shooting during a bank raid. the max sentence is life and it is an indictable crime that must be tried in crown court. this seems inappropriate when dealing with robberies where no significant violence is used. perhaps there should be a separate lesser offence for these instances
- robbery = offence under s 8 of 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 there and then subject to force
s.8 (1) Theft Act 1968
- the elements that must be proven for robbery are for the actus reus:
~theft
~force or putting or seeking to put any person in fear of force
- there are 2 conditions on the force: it must be immediately before or at the time of the theft, and it must be in order to steal.
- for mens rea of robbery it must be proved that D:
~had the mens rea ffor theft, and
~intended to use force to steal
- what the prosecution must prove:
- 'steals'. The accused must be guilty of theft
- all elements of theft must be proved otherwise it cannot be robbery
~V would not hand over money he owed a woman who ran a clothing club. her husband forced him to hand it over by threatening him with a knife.accused honestly believed he had legal right to appropriate the money hence he wasn't dishonesty under s.2 (1) (a). with no mens rea for theft there could be no conviction for robbery (though he could be convicted of assault)
- another example, though this time with a different result is Corcoran v Anderton 1980
~ accused tried to snatch V bag but V resisted. in the struggle the bag fell to the floor and the accused ran off. charged with robbery, he tried to claim there was no theft because he hadn't appropriated the bad. at no time during the struggle did he actually have sole control of the bag. CoA stated that by simply tugging at the bag he had assumed the rights of the owner. this was appropriating and hence theft and robbery.
~ some hostility was between a group of people in a park. D snatched V's phone and said she could have it back if one of her friends would speak to him. Police were called and D was arrested & charged with robbery. he was convicted.CoA quashed conviction because evidence did not establish intention to permanently deprive V of her phone. D's condition for returning the phone could have been 'fulfilled in the near future'. this meant there was no theft and therefore no robbery.
- Force or threat of force in order to steal
~theft act doesn't define force
~however, case law suggests that even the slightest amount of force is sufficient, but there must be some force
~ one defendant nudged a sailor and whilst of balance the other defendant snatched his wallet. this was sufficient force for a robbery
~D snatched a cigarette from V's hand without touching V in anyways. the court stated: the unexpected removal of a cigarette from between the fingers of a person is no more use of force on a person than would be the removal of an item from her pocket. this offence is properly categorised as simple theft.
- pick pocketing usually involves so little contact that it isn't force and hence probably not robbery.
- Smith and Hogan (legal academics).
sliding a bag gently off someone's arm or snatching a bag or someone's lap may also not be robbery
~accused wrenched a shopping bag from V's hand. little force was used because she hadn't seen him coming and hence was not holding it tightly. again this was held to be enough force for robbery
~ the words... or puts or seeks to put in fear found in s.8 indicate that a mere threat of force is sufficient. no contact is necessary
~ a raised fist, pointed gun, or verbal threat will turn a theft into a robbery.~ the words or seeks to also means that if you try but don't success in frightening V, it is still robbery
~V a schoolboy aged 16, was stopped by 5 other schoolboys. they asked for his mobile phone & money. at this point another 5/6 boys joined & surrounded V. no serious violence was used against him but he was pushed and his arms were held whilst he was searched. D's appealed against their convictions for robbery. Divisional court upheld their convictions for robbery on the grounds that:
- there was no need to show that V felt threatened; s8 of Theft Act 1968 states that a robbery can be committed if the defendants seek to put any person in fear of being then and there subjected to force;
2.there could be an implied threat of force; in this case the surrounding the victim by so many created an implied threat;
- in any event, there was some limited force used by holding V's arms and pushing him.
- force or threat must be used *immediately before or at the time* of the theft
~ if this was strictly applied, those who used force after they have appropriated could not be convicted of robbery.~those who use violence to escape or threats to discourage V phoning the police could not be convicted under s.8. they would have to be convicted of separate crimes of theft & assault.~ courts however have found away around this problem
~ 2 burglars entered a house with stockings over their heads. one of them went upstairs and took a jewellery box. the other, Hale, tied up the householder. defence claimed that at the time that hale had tied her up the accomplice had already appropriated the box. hence this could not be robbery because the force came after the appropriation.in CoA LJ Eveleigh said that appropriation was a continuing act & didn't suddenly end when the accomplice first held the property. hence the appropriation was still ongoing when the accused tied up V. Force was being used at the time of the stealing
- the same approach was taken in Lockley 1995
~ accused stole some cans of beer and then used violence on the shopkeeper who tried to block his escape. his claim that the force came after the appropriation didn't prevent his conviction because appropriation was a continuing act.
- the force/threat must have been used in order to steal
~if you hit someone out of malice and only then decide to take their wallet it is not a robbery. prosecution would have to use the separate offences of theft & assault.~ use of words in order to may also suggest that the force must be at the time of or immediately before the theft. however this is not an obstacle to conviction if appropriation is seen as a continuing act as seen in Hale 1978