ROBBERYBy Kenisha Browning and Ellissia Davis

INTRODUCTION

The traditional view of the bank robber with amask over his face waving a shotgun around iseveryone’s idea of robbery. But, can it be said tobe robbery if two people, holding their Oystercards, run into each other at a tube station andpick up each other’s card after they have beendropped in the collision; one card has little crediton it, the other has a substantial credit balance?What circumstances might change the accident toa robbery?

WHAT IS ROBBERY?

The offence of robbery if defined in the Theft act 1968, s8(1) as:

‘ A person is guilty of robbery if he steals, andimmediately before or at the time of doing so,

andin order to do so, he uses force on any person

orputs or seeks to put any person in fear of beingthen and there subjected to force’

ACTUS REUS FOR ROBBERY

Actus Reus of Robbery

1) Actus reus of Theft

2) Using force or fear of force

3) Immediately before or at the

time of theft

4) To any person

EXPLANATION1) Actus Reus of theft – As robbery is an

aggravated form of theft, all the elements of theft must be present in order for robbery to be established. (Dawson 1976)

2) Force/ Fear of force (Clouden 1987) – four main points to remember:

1) The level of force may be

minimal ( pushing. Jostling) as well as

more serious violence.

2) Force may be applied to the person or their

property ( grabbing a handbag without

touching the owner)

3) Fear of force will suffice.

4) Force must be used to facilitate theft. The essence of robbery is that force is used to commit theft so there must be a causal link between the theft and the force used.

KEY CASES

Element of Actus Reus

CASE NAME Information

LEVEL OF FORCE DAWSON AND JAMES (1976)

Defendants stood around the victim, one of them nudged the victim. This caused the victim to lose his balance so that his wallet could be easily taken. Sufficient force for a conviction.

FORCE MAY BE APPLIED TO THE PERSON OF THEIR PROPERTY

CLOUDEN (1987) Defendant followed a woman who was carrying a shopping basket in her left hand. He approached her from behind and wrenched the basked down and out of her grasp with both hands and ran off with it. Sufficient force for a conviction.

EXPLANATION

3) Any person – Force is often used on the owner of the property but the reference to ‘any person’ in s.8 means that this need not be the case. Robbery would be too narrow if it was restricted to force used against the owner of property as this would exclude, for example, bank robbery whereby the employees are threatened but clearly are not the owners of the money.

4) Immediately before or at the time – As robbery requires that force is used in order to steal, the use of force must precede or coincide with the theft. Force used after the theft is complete cannot have been instrumental in committing theft. Despite the logic of this position, it limited the scope of robbery by placing situations in which the defendant used violence to get away after theft outside the offence.

KEY CASE

Element of Actus Reus

CASE NAME

Information

TIMING OF FORCE

HALE (1978)

The defendant’s accomplice stole jewellery whilst the defendant remained downstairs with the owner of the house. He tied her to a chair and threatened to harm her child if she called the police after they left. He argued that the force occurred after the theft so he could not be liable for robbery.

Appropriation is a continuing act that commences with the first assumption of the owner’s rights but which does not ceases immediately (the duration of appropriation is a question of fact for the jury).

MENS REA FOR ROBBERY

Mens rea for theft

Intentional use of force

Mens rea for

robbery

There are a number of elements of points to beconsidered apart from the elements of theft.

Questions about

robbery

1) What must be done

2) How must it be done?

3) To whom must force be

applied?

4) When must force be applied?

WHAT AMOUNTS TO FORCE OR THREAT OF FORCE ON A PERSON?

1. The force/threat must be noticeable, but not necessarily to the victim. What would not be sufficient would be the threat of future violence, as that would not fulfil the definition of ‘ fear of being then and there subjected to force’.

2. Does not matter whether the victim is actually put in fear or not: only intention matters:

1. Even if the victim was not afraid doesn't mean that the defendant did not ATTEMPT to put him in fear.

3. Does not have to be direct force on the victim. The word ‘force’ is all that is required.

4. Threat does not have to be as the victim imagines if it is intended to cause fear.

WHEN DOES THE FORCE OR THREAT OF FORCE HAVE TO TAKE PLACE? Definition requires the

force or threat of force to take place immediately before or at the time of stealing.

Stealing and appropriation may be very brief Corcoran and Anderson

(1980): knocking a handbag out of the victim’s grasp with force was sufficient for there to be a robbery even though the robber did not take the bag.

WHAT CONNECTION MUST THERE BE BETWEEN THE FORCE AND THE THEFT?

The force of threat of force must be used in order to steal.

If the force or threat of force is used for a different purpose (such as rape), then it is not robbery.

Where the force is used to allow the theft to happen, for example to obtain the keys to a building or safe, then it can be robbery.