[Robbery] ❷ Force) The theft must be with force [Robbery] ❸ Immediately before or at the same time [Robbery] ❹ The force must be used on any
or the threat of force. As force is an ordinary English of doing so) The force used must used immediately person) The term any person encompasses a person
word, it is up to the jury to decide whether D before or at the same time of the theft. Moreover, in key with or near to the Victim, not just the victim
satisfies this. In the case of R v Zerei 2012, the Jude situations where the force was used just after, if the jury themselves. This is defined in Clouden.
gave the jury the wrong definition of force and thus decide that the appropriation was an “continuing act”, • R v Clouden 1998) D approached V from behind
the case was appealed by was of case stated. until force was used. and wrenched a shopping basket from her
Very little force is needed to salsify the term • R v Hale 1978) Defendants stole a jewellery box from hands. It was open to the jury to find that the
“Force”. a defendants house and then went downstairs and force applied to V’s bag amounted to force on
• R v Dawson and James 1976) Where Ds jostled used force by covering her mouth to stop her any person if it affects the victims body. The
V and he lost his balance and the D was able to screaming. As the force was applied after the act of prescient from this that it is enough to apply
take his wallet. Even though “Jostling” doesn’t theft, it was argued that it could not be robbery as it force to only the possession and not the body
satisfy at bodily harm case, it is enough to prove wasn’t “immediately before or at the same time”. directly, as by process force is used on V.
force in theft and thus Robbery. This technicality was upheld, but a continuing act
The victim does not actually need to feel was used from the appropriation of the Jewellery [Robbery] ❺ In order to steal) This means that the
threatened. It is enough for merely the defendant box. The precedent from this is that the theft needs purpose of the force must be to enable the defendant
to intern to be looked at as a whole. to commit the theft. If force is used, but not to enable
• B&R v DPP 2007) Schoolboy was ganged up on the theft itself, cannot suffice robbery.
by another group of schoolboys and took his • R v James 1997) D assaulted a taxi driver by
mobile, watch and Oster card. However, V said getting him in a headlock and punching him. The
that he did not feel scared or threatened. It was
Property offences: The Theft act 1968 S8 other man opportunistically stole £200 from the
taxi. It was held that the force used by the
Robbery
held that robbery does not require proof that V
was actually put in fear; just that D seeks to defendant was not done in order to steal. His
cause to apprehend violence. conviction for robbery was quashed.
[Robbery] Definition) The definition of robbery is
defined in section 8 of the theft act 1968. It says that [Robbery] Mens Rea) The means rea required for
[Robbery] ❶ Theft) Firstly there must be a robbery is where D steals, and immediately before or at robbery is intention or recklessness for threat or
theft as confirmed in the court of appeal in R v the same time of doing so, and in order to do so, used use of force. This means that if the defendant aim
Guy. This means that the Actus rea and Mens force on any person or seeks to put any person in fear of or desire is to use or threaten force then it needs
Reus of theft need to be established first. being, then and there subjected to force. the requisite mens rea, namely intention.
• R v Robinson 1977) The defendant took
money that was owed to by force, during a
fight. It was held that as D honestly Mens Rea of EITHER Mens Rea of
believed he was entitled to that money, he [Robbery] The elements of robbery) There must be: robbery) D aims or robbery) There is a
was not dishonest and thus, it did not 1. ❶ There must be a theft desires to threaten risk that D will use or
satisfy the AR+MR for theft. Subsequently, 2. ❷ The theft must be with force or the threat of or use force. As in R v threaten force, and
robbery could not be made out either. force Mohan he realises it. As in R
• Corcoran v Anderton 1980) Two lads tried 3. ❸ This force or threat of force must take place AND v Cunningham
to pull a handbag from a woman. She immediately before or at the same time of the theft
dropped the bag. It was held that the 4. ❹ The force or threat of it must be on any person BOTH
Mens Rea of theft) Mens Rea of theft)
temporary appropriation of the handbag 5. ❺ The force or threat of it must be used to steal.
Dishonesty appropriate. Intention to
was enough for the offence of theft, so this
As in R v Gosh permanently deprive. As
was robbery.
Jake Saville (LVTc2-12/13) 33 in R v Velumyl
or the threat of force. As force is an ordinary English of doing so) The force used must used immediately person) The term any person encompasses a person
word, it is up to the jury to decide whether D before or at the same time of the theft. Moreover, in key with or near to the Victim, not just the victim
satisfies this. In the case of R v Zerei 2012, the Jude situations where the force was used just after, if the jury themselves. This is defined in Clouden.
gave the jury the wrong definition of force and thus decide that the appropriation was an “continuing act”, • R v Clouden 1998) D approached V from behind
the case was appealed by was of case stated. until force was used. and wrenched a shopping basket from her
Very little force is needed to salsify the term • R v Hale 1978) Defendants stole a jewellery box from hands. It was open to the jury to find that the
“Force”. a defendants house and then went downstairs and force applied to V’s bag amounted to force on
• R v Dawson and James 1976) Where Ds jostled used force by covering her mouth to stop her any person if it affects the victims body. The
V and he lost his balance and the D was able to screaming. As the force was applied after the act of prescient from this that it is enough to apply
take his wallet. Even though “Jostling” doesn’t theft, it was argued that it could not be robbery as it force to only the possession and not the body
satisfy at bodily harm case, it is enough to prove wasn’t “immediately before or at the same time”. directly, as by process force is used on V.
force in theft and thus Robbery. This technicality was upheld, but a continuing act
The victim does not actually need to feel was used from the appropriation of the Jewellery [Robbery] ❺ In order to steal) This means that the
threatened. It is enough for merely the defendant box. The precedent from this is that the theft needs purpose of the force must be to enable the defendant
to intern to be looked at as a whole. to commit the theft. If force is used, but not to enable
• B&R v DPP 2007) Schoolboy was ganged up on the theft itself, cannot suffice robbery.
by another group of schoolboys and took his • R v James 1997) D assaulted a taxi driver by
mobile, watch and Oster card. However, V said getting him in a headlock and punching him. The
that he did not feel scared or threatened. It was
Property offences: The Theft act 1968 S8 other man opportunistically stole £200 from the
taxi. It was held that the force used by the
Robbery
held that robbery does not require proof that V
was actually put in fear; just that D seeks to defendant was not done in order to steal. His
cause to apprehend violence. conviction for robbery was quashed.
[Robbery] Definition) The definition of robbery is
defined in section 8 of the theft act 1968. It says that [Robbery] Mens Rea) The means rea required for
[Robbery] ❶ Theft) Firstly there must be a robbery is where D steals, and immediately before or at robbery is intention or recklessness for threat or
theft as confirmed in the court of appeal in R v the same time of doing so, and in order to do so, used use of force. This means that if the defendant aim
Guy. This means that the Actus rea and Mens force on any person or seeks to put any person in fear of or desire is to use or threaten force then it needs
Reus of theft need to be established first. being, then and there subjected to force. the requisite mens rea, namely intention.
• R v Robinson 1977) The defendant took
money that was owed to by force, during a
fight. It was held that as D honestly Mens Rea of EITHER Mens Rea of
believed he was entitled to that money, he [Robbery] The elements of robbery) There must be: robbery) D aims or robbery) There is a
was not dishonest and thus, it did not 1. ❶ There must be a theft desires to threaten risk that D will use or
satisfy the AR+MR for theft. Subsequently, 2. ❷ The theft must be with force or the threat of or use force. As in R v threaten force, and
robbery could not be made out either. force Mohan he realises it. As in R
• Corcoran v Anderton 1980) Two lads tried 3. ❸ This force or threat of force must take place AND v Cunningham
to pull a handbag from a woman. She immediately before or at the same time of the theft
dropped the bag. It was held that the 4. ❹ The force or threat of it must be on any person BOTH
Mens Rea of theft) Mens Rea of theft)
temporary appropriation of the handbag 5. ❺ The force or threat of it must be used to steal.
Dishonesty appropriate. Intention to
was enough for the offence of theft, so this
As in R v Gosh permanently deprive. As
was robbery.
Jake Saville (LVTc2-12/13) 33 in R v Velumyl
