Robbery

Definition

Actus Reus

Mens Rea

THEFT

s8 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 then and there subjected to force.

Dishonesty

Intention to Permanently Deprive

Force

Same as theft

R v Robinson

Court of Appeal quashed the conviction as he genuinely believed he had a legal right to the money

All elements of theft must be satisfied for robbery to be committed

Force

R v Dawson and James

Force is an ordinary English word and its meaning should be left up to the jury.

P v DPP

Snatching, without physical contact, is insufficient to constitute use of force for robbery.

R v Clouden

Wrenching a bag from V's hand is enough to constitute use of force for robbery

Meaning of 'force' should be left for jury to decide. Not defined in Act

R v Hale

Appropriation is a continuing act. (Force before or after stealing was considered one act)

R v Dawson and James

R v Vinall

The force was used well before the appropriation, so robbery was not made out.

Corcoran v Anderton

Liable for robbery because appropriation is complete when the handbag was successfully wrenched. (Force in wrenching)

R and B v DPP

Courts only required to take into account the intended outcome of the perpetrator's actions, not the victim's fortitude.

No intention to permanently deprive. So, there was no theft and therefore no robbery.

R v Zerei

R v Waters

Same as theft

Criticism

Problems with 'Force has to be immediately before or at the time of the theft'

  1. no case has decided on the point of how immediate 'immediately before' has to be
  2. deciding when the theft is complete so that it can be decided if it was 'at the time of stealing' or not.(R v Lockley and R v Hale)

Jury Discretion

Resulting in discrepancies of how the law on theft is applied for theft itself and robbery (can be separate point)

When force is minimal the punishment may be overly harsh and disproportionate - relate after jury discretion argument

Conflicts with the law on theft

Threats vs Actual Force
R v Bentham

Subjectivity of Force

Having no inbetween of theft and robbery is most likely to effect vulnerable individuals like those in poverty as they may use minimal force due to desperation
Creating criminals and then overly punishing them
R v Mitchell

Intent to permanently deprive - hard to prove and complicates proceedings where theft was opportunistic or impulsive