and in order to do so, uses force of the threat of force"
A completed theft that was committed with force or the threat of force, with the mens rea of
theft and the intention to use force to steal.
Actus reus - a completed theft
There must be a completed theft. If any elements are
- R v Waters (2015)
If we have a situation where there has been force but the theft was not completed, then
potentially you could charge a defendant with attempted theft, and by default an attempt
robbery if force was still present - Corcoran v Anderton (1980)
Force or Threat of Force
Alongside a completed theft, there must be force or the threat of force. The amount of force
used/threatened can be small.
R v Dawson and James (1976)
- The word ‘force’ does not suggest a certain level of force, meaning it would be for the
jury to decide whether force had been used.
Where there has not been any direct contact between the defendant and victim, it will be
unlikely for a jury to find that force has been used.
RP v DPP (2012)
Threat of force - the victim does not actually need to fear force. We just consider the
defendant’s point of view, and whether they wanted to make the victim fear force, not
whether they were successful in doing so.
B and R v DPP (2007)
Immediately Before or at The Time of the Theft
- We need to consider whether the theft was still ongoing.
Immediately before - force was used to initiate the theft
At the time of the theft - coincidence of AR and MR, have to make sure that the theft is still
ongoing.
R v Hale (1979)
The Force Used Must be in Order to Steal
The use of force, or force threatened, can be ‘on any person’. This means that the person
that has been threatened does not need to be the same person that has experienced the
theft.
Mens rea
Sections 2 and 6 of the Theft Act 1968
Part of the mens rea of robbery is that the defendant must have the mens rea of theft.
‘The mens rea of theft has already been proven through the completed theft.’
Mens rea - Intention to Use Force to Steal
Section 8 Theft Act 1968