Robbery:
S8 of the Theft Act 1968
(1) defines robbery as ‘a person is guilty of robbery if he steals, and immediately
before or at the time of stealing, and in order to do so uses force or threatens to use
force’
‘Steal’ means theft as defined in S1 of the Theft Act 1968
Robbery has to fulfil all the sections of Theft (the 5 things)
AR -
Immediately Before or at the Time of doing so:
Can’t be after
Forrester [1992]
knocked a victim off balance to mke the theft easier, force was applied so
theft was possible
Hale [1978]
Said ‘the act of appropriation does not suddenly cease. It is a continuous act
and it is a matter for the jury to decide whether or not the act of appropriation
has finished’.
It was a case where force was applied during a struggle, he applied force in
order to secure the jewellery box so it was found to be during the act
Lockley [1995]
The defendant went into an off license and took goods off the shelf and as he
left the shopkeeper got in his way so he applied force to get out
Technically the force was applied after the appropriation but if seen as an
ongoing process then it was still in doing so
And in Order to do so:
Forrester [1992]
Knocked the victim off balance and was seen as being so that he could steal
Clear link between theft and force
Donaghy [1981]
Taxi driver accosted by donaghy and threatened him to get a free ride
On arrival he also stole £22
Question was whether the threat of force was linked to the second stealing of
money
Considered not to be linked so it was on theft and one robbery
Uses Force:
No special legal definition for this
Used to need strictly direct force
Dawson [1976]
Said the matter was down to the jury
, Hale [1978]
1 jewellery box and 1 person restraining the victim and hand over the mouth
Clear and direct application of force
Corcoran and Anderton [1980]
D struck the victim in the back then tugged at the handbag so the women
released the handbag, screamed and fell
They left the bag there
Question was whether or not it was appropriation or whether force was
needed to be direct more so
Clouden [1987]
Force applied to basket
Court decided it was a robbery
Didn’t matter that force was applied indirectly, it was still force and therefore
illegal
Smith v Desmond [1965]
Force doesn’t need to be applied against the owner
Bakery watched at night by 2 men/security who were restrained while the
bakery was robbed
Was still a robbery
Seeks to put Someone in Fear of Force:
Robinson [1977]
Threatened the person with a knife was sufficient for robbery
This case fell down on the MR though
R v DPP [2007]
Not about the victim perception it is about the actions of D
Enough that they tried to cause fear
MR -
Mens rea of stealing is the same as it is for theft
Dishonesty and intention to permanently deprive
Intention or recklessness is the standard for the use of force in order to steal
Robinson [1977]
Threatened with a knife and was classed as the AR for robbery
Originally convicted but on appeal it was quashed as it didn’t satisfy
dishonesty because he genuinely believed he had the right to that money
Criticism:
Andrew Ashworth
Believed robbery should be a 2 tier offence
Robbery and aggravated robbery
Minor street robbery and organised crime are charged as the same offence
Believes it not fairly labelled
Burglary:
S8 of the Theft Act 1968
(1) defines robbery as ‘a person is guilty of robbery if he steals, and immediately
before or at the time of stealing, and in order to do so uses force or threatens to use
force’
‘Steal’ means theft as defined in S1 of the Theft Act 1968
Robbery has to fulfil all the sections of Theft (the 5 things)
AR -
Immediately Before or at the Time of doing so:
Can’t be after
Forrester [1992]
knocked a victim off balance to mke the theft easier, force was applied so
theft was possible
Hale [1978]
Said ‘the act of appropriation does not suddenly cease. It is a continuous act
and it is a matter for the jury to decide whether or not the act of appropriation
has finished’.
It was a case where force was applied during a struggle, he applied force in
order to secure the jewellery box so it was found to be during the act
Lockley [1995]
The defendant went into an off license and took goods off the shelf and as he
left the shopkeeper got in his way so he applied force to get out
Technically the force was applied after the appropriation but if seen as an
ongoing process then it was still in doing so
And in Order to do so:
Forrester [1992]
Knocked the victim off balance and was seen as being so that he could steal
Clear link between theft and force
Donaghy [1981]
Taxi driver accosted by donaghy and threatened him to get a free ride
On arrival he also stole £22
Question was whether the threat of force was linked to the second stealing of
money
Considered not to be linked so it was on theft and one robbery
Uses Force:
No special legal definition for this
Used to need strictly direct force
Dawson [1976]
Said the matter was down to the jury
, Hale [1978]
1 jewellery box and 1 person restraining the victim and hand over the mouth
Clear and direct application of force
Corcoran and Anderton [1980]
D struck the victim in the back then tugged at the handbag so the women
released the handbag, screamed and fell
They left the bag there
Question was whether or not it was appropriation or whether force was
needed to be direct more so
Clouden [1987]
Force applied to basket
Court decided it was a robbery
Didn’t matter that force was applied indirectly, it was still force and therefore
illegal
Smith v Desmond [1965]
Force doesn’t need to be applied against the owner
Bakery watched at night by 2 men/security who were restrained while the
bakery was robbed
Was still a robbery
Seeks to put Someone in Fear of Force:
Robinson [1977]
Threatened the person with a knife was sufficient for robbery
This case fell down on the MR though
R v DPP [2007]
Not about the victim perception it is about the actions of D
Enough that they tried to cause fear
MR -
Mens rea of stealing is the same as it is for theft
Dishonesty and intention to permanently deprive
Intention or recklessness is the standard for the use of force in order to steal
Robinson [1977]
Threatened with a knife and was classed as the AR for robbery
Originally convicted but on appeal it was quashed as it didn’t satisfy
dishonesty because he genuinely believed he had the right to that money
Criticism:
Andrew Ashworth
Believed robbery should be a 2 tier offence
Robbery and aggravated robbery
Minor street robbery and organised crime are charged as the same offence
Believes it not fairly labelled
Burglary:
