Robbery

 

Robbery

Robbery is defined in s8 of the Theft Act. It states:

That 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 seeks to put them  in fear of being then and there subjected to force.

The maximum sentence provided by Section 8(2) is life imprisonment.

Robbery is the combination of the Mens Rea and the Actus Reus of Theft plus Force, the Actus Reus of Force is putting or seeking to put a person in a position of fear, and the Mens Rea is the intention to utilise force in order to steal.

Robbery is an aggravated form of theft; it can be seen very simply as theft with force.  Because of this definition, it can differ wildly from the traditional stereotype of the bank robber with a mask and a gun. Robbery can be as simple as snatching a bag from the arm of a shopper.

As In the case of - Clouden 1987

The complainant need not 'fight back'; overcoming resistance counts as force for Section 8. So snatching a handbag can be robbery. The distinction between a victim who resisted having his property taken (for example snatching a handbag) used to be important, but it is not now, it is up to the jury to decide if the 'snatching' amounts to force.

ACTUS REUS

Is defined as Theft, on the grounds of the appropriation of property belonging to another and the Force or putting or seeking to put any person in fear of force.

A case to support this is: R v Mason 1820

Where the defendant (a man) seized a gold watch from the victim's pocket, and pulled hard enough to break a security chain going around victims’ neck. Park J said this force was sufficient to amount to robbery rather than larceny at common law, and the judges of the King's Bench unanimously agreed.

So there must be a completed theft, force or threat of force and the force must be immediately before or at the time of theft and the force must only be used to aid the stealing.

The word force is not defined in the Act so the definition has been left to common law.  However, the force, or threat of force must be sufficient to be noticeable, but not necessarily to the victim. 

For example, waving a knife at a blind person would not be enough to amount to force as they would be unaware of the potential harm meaning no fear. it would amount to force if they states ‘I have a knife’.

A case to support this is - R v Dawson and James 1978

Where the defendant approached the victim and two of them nudged him from side to side while the third took the victims’ wallet from his pocket. The Court of Appeal affirmed their conviction for robbery; the amount of force used or threatened may have been small, and it is up to the jury to decide whether it was enough to constitute robbery. They were found to be Guilty.

As well as this it is up to the jury to decide when the Appropriation has ended in the case of – R v Lockley 1995

Where the defendant took goods from an off-licence and was stopped by the shopkeeper whom he assaulted. It was held that 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'.

Another case is

R v Hale 1978 –

The two defendants broke into a woman's home. One went upstairs and took some jewellery from her bedroom. After taking the jewellery the two of them tied her up. They were convicted of robbery and appealed on the grounds that the force came after they had appropriate the jewellery and thus did not come within the requirement of being immediately before or at the time of stealing. The convictions upheld. The appropriation of the jewellery was a continuing act. Found to be guilty.

MENS REA

The Mens Rea of theft is the Mens Rea of Theft meaning dishonest and intention to permanently deprive. Also the Mens Rea of Force meaning the Intention to use force to aid the steal.

A case to support this is - R v Raphael 2008 –

In R v Raphael, Raphael and others were convicted of a conspiracy to rob the victim by forcibly taking his car and then offering him the opportunity to buy it back from them. The question arose whether this could amount to robbery, or whether the Victim would get his property back by having to pay for it, there was no intention permanently to deprive and hence no theft.

Sir Igor Judge P suggested that it was “hard to find a better example of such an intention” than the facts of this case, encouraged a wide interpretation of s.6 of the Theft Act 1968. This was a guilty case as if it was found not guilty it would allow for a flood gate of retrials for cases with similar aspects meaning that more people would do it because they would be found not guilty.

A not guilty case is – R v Robinson 1977

The defendant took money from the victim. The victim's wife owed the money to the defendant. The defendant argued, the money was not appropriated with dishonestly, therefore there was not theft, and therefore there could be no robbery.
It was held that there was no theft because D believed he had a legal right to the property. He was found to be not guilty.

All the elements required for section 1(1) theft are necessary to prove robbery. So, where defendant honestly believed he was entitled to property meaning that there could be no robbery. 

Completion of the offence

 An example when the offence of robbery is complete is in the case of - Corcoran v Anderton 1980

The defendant struck the victim in the back, tugged at her handbag causing the woman to release it. The woman screamed and fell. Both defendants and his accomplice ran off empty-handed. The woman retrieved her handbag. At no time did the defendant have sole control over the handbag. It was held that the tugging of the handbag of itself might not be a sufficient appropriation; the snatching of the handbag from the woman causing it to fall from her grasp to the ground amounted to an appropriation. He was found to be guilty.