LAW04: Criminal Law Robbery

(Offences against Property

Definition:

Robbery is defined in s. 8 TA68

"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
used force on any person or puts or seeks to put any
person in fear of being then and there subjected to force."
ACTUS REUS

In order for a robbery to take place 2 things must occur:

1. A theft; and

2. Force or putting or seeking to put any person in fear of

force.
 There are also 2 conditions placed on the force:

1. The force must be before or at the time of the theft;

and

2. the force must be in order to steal.

Completed theft

Every element of theft must have been satisfied:

Actus reus:

1. appropriation

2. property

3. belonging to another

Mens rea:

4. dishonesty

5. intention to permanently deprive

Robinson (1977)

The D ran a clothing club and was

owed £7 by the V's wife. D
approached V and threatened him.
During a struggle V dropped £5 and
the D took the money.

Is this robbery?

No.

Why?

The D was not dishonest (because

of s. 2(1)(a)) and therefore a theft
had not been completed.
Corcoran v Anderton (1980)

The D hit a woman in the back and

tugged at her bag. the V let go of the
bag and it fell to the ground. The D
then ran off without the bag.

Is this robbery?

Yes.

Why?

If force is used the theft becomes a

robbery as soon as the theft is
complete. The tugging of the handbag
is enough to satisfy appropriation and
all the other elements of theft are there.
Force or threat of force ...

For a robbery to have taken place there must be force or

the threat of force.

The amount of force used can be small.

Dawson and James (1976)

D1 pushed the V causing V to

lose his balance. This enabled
D2 to take V's wallet.

The CA stated that "force" is an

ordinary word and it is up to the
jury to decide if there has been
force.

In Clouden (1987) the D

wrenched a shopping basket
from V's hand and was
convicted of robbery.
But, if a D pulls a shoulder bag that simply slides off the
V's shoulder then no actual force is used 'on a person'
and so this would probably not be robbery.

This argument can be seen in ...

 P v DPP (2012)

The D snatched a cigarette from

V's hand without touching V in
any way.

It was held that this was not a

robbery because force had not
been used 'on a person' as there
was no direct contact between
the D and V.
Force doesn't actually need to be applied for there to be
a robbery.

Putting V "in fear of being there and then subjected to

force" is enough to satisfy the crime. This is caused by
threatening words and/or gestures.

The V does not actually have to fear the threat in order

for there to be a robbery.
B and R v DPP (2007)

V (a 16 yr old boy) was stopped by 5

other schoolboys. They asked V for
his mobile and his money. As this
was happening, 5 other schoolboys
also surrounded V. No serious
violence was used but V was pushed
and his arms were held behind his
back whilst he was searched.

The Ds took V's mobile, £5 from his

wallet, his watch and his travel card.
V stated that he didn't feel
threatened or scared but did feel a
bit shocked.
The Divisional Court upheld the
Ds' convictions for robbery
because ...

• they had used limited force

(holding V's arms and pushing
him);

• there was also an implied

threat (surrounding the V); and

• there is no need to prove that

the V felt threatened at all.
... on any person.

The person threatened does not need to be the person

from whom the theft occurs.

For example, when a bank is robbed customers may be

threatened or have force used on them but it is the bank
that is the victim of the theft.
Force immediately before or at the time of the theft.

This raises 2 possible problems:

1. How immediate does "immediately before" have to be?

For example, if a person is threatened and hands over their

debit card but the D only uses the card 24 hours later to take
money from an account, is the force sufficiently immediate
enough for the theft of the money to count as robbery?

We don't know ... there are no decided cases on this!

2. The second problem occurs in deciding at what point
the initial theft has been completed. The force has to be
BEFORE or AT THE TIME of the theft.

If the force occurs after the theft then there is no

robbery.
Hale (1979)

2 Ds knocked on the door of a

house. V (a woman) opened the
door and the Ds forced her
inside. D1 put his hand over V's
mouth whilst D2 went upstairs to
see what he could find to steal.
The Ds left with a jewellery box
and tied the V up before they left.

The Ds argued that tying V up

was after the theft and so this
wasn't robbery.
The CA upheld the Ds
convictions. There was
force before the theft (D1
put his hand over the V's
mouth) and the court also
stated that tying V up was
force "at the time" of the
theft because the theft of
the jewellery box was still
ongoing. The appropriation
was a continuing act.
Lockley (1995)

The D was caught shoplifting a can of

beer from an off-licence and used
force on the shopkeeper, who was
trying to stop him from escaping.

the CA followed the decision in Hale

and held that the D was guilty of
robbery. The theft of the can of beer
was a continuing act and was still
ongoing when the force was used.

But there will be a point when the

theft is complete and any force after
this point will not constitute a robbery.
 In the case of Vinall (2011) the Ds punched V causing
him to fall off his bike, then one D told the V not to try
anything stupid because he had a knife. The V ran away.
The Ds then took V's bicycle but abandoned it in a bus
shelter about 50 yards away.

The CA quashed the Ds' conviction for robbery because

it could not be proved when the jury thought the
intention to permanently deprive had occurred. If it only
occurred when the Ds abandoned the bike then force
was not used in order to steal ...
Force in order to steal.

If the force was not used to steal then there is no robbery.

For example, D knocks V to the floor because he is angry

with him. Some money falls out of V's pocket and D
decides to take it.

This is not robbery because the force was not used in order
to steal.
MENS REA

In order to satisfy the mens rea of robbery the D must

have ...

1. The mens rea of theft: both dishonesty and the intention

to permanently deprive;

and

2. The intention to use the force to steal.