Criminal Law- Robbery
Corcoran V anderton
Two Ds tried to take the victims handbag by force and snatched the handbag and then dropped it with out it, they tried to make the argument that theft was not complete, however the court held the theft was complete as soon as they took the bag from the victim and therefore robbery was complete once theft was complete
Mitchell
the Ds took the victims car as a get away car and they abandoned it later, they had only drove a few miles away from were it had been taken, the hazard lights were flashing, there had been no attempt to conceal the car, the courts found there was no intention to permanently deprive the owners of their car
Zerei
the Ds approach the D in a car park, told the V they were going to take his car and went he V refused there was a struggle, D punched the V and pulled out a knife, the keys were taken and D drove off, the car was found shortly after. issue on appeal was whether the trial judges direction was a misdirection and it was held it was they said he had not drawn the necessary distinction between an intention to permanently deprive and depriving for a short period of time another problem was the judge gave the direction that a violent taking was sufficient to show an intention to permanently deprive, and he did not explain abandonment and an intention to permanently deprive
Vinall
two Ds who were charged with robbery and they approached a young boy in a park, punched him from his bicycle, the V run away leaving his bike behind and the Ds then take it and abandon it later about 50 yards away, the D argued there was intention to permanently deprive V of the bike, and also that the force used was not used at the time of or in order to steal, the court said that they presumed right over the bike to dispose of.
Dawspn v James
V had gave evidence that he had been nudges and pushed of balance and while he was trying to keep balance his wallet had been stolen, the court said that force is to be given its ordinary meaning and the amount of force only need to be minimal.
Clouden
D was seen to follow a woman who was carrying a shopping basket he approached her from behind and wrenched the basket out of her hands with both hands and ran off with it, he was charged with robbery and theft, he appealed on the grounds that there was no resistance of the snatching to constitute force, this was rejected, and it is open to the jury to decide whether the force was used to steal
P v DPP
D snatched a cig from the Vs hand with no physical contact between them, the question was whether mere snatching in this context could amount to force, the mere removal of a cig did not amount to force used on a person
R v Martin
Two Ds charged with robbery having snatched keys and a phone from the Vs hands, Ds argued that snatching did not amount, on these facts there was sufficient evidence to show force had been used against the person
B and R v DPP
V is a 16 year old boy who comes out of a rail station, he was stopped by about 5 boys and asked if he had a mobile phone or money, he said he did not. then some more boys joined them, B takes hold of Ws arms and searches his pockets takes a wallet, watch and travel card, R was standing directly in front of V so he could not escape. at trial V said he did not feel threatened or scared but was in shock.
James
D is appealing against his conviction of robbery against a taxi driver, the co defendant plead guilty to punching the V in the head and taking £200, while this was all happening James was holding the driver in a head lock, he denied assaulting the driver or stealing, he said he was holding the driver to protect the driver and not assist the other D. his appeal was allowed as the judge had omitted to direct the jury that the force employed must be used in order to steal, a substitution of theft was made
R v Hale
A and B force their way into Vs house, A put his hand over the Vs mouth while B went upstairs and took her jewelry and before leaving they tired her up, A argued that they appropriated the property before using force on the owner, the force was not used at the time or before. appeal was dismissed.
R v Lockley
D took cans of beer form an off licence and when approached by the shop keeper then used violence. the court said appropriation could be seen as a continuing act so the force he used was in order to steal.
what is the legislation that sets out robbery?
- Section 8 Theft Act 1968 states:
- 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 puts or seeks to put any person in fear of being then and there subjected to force.
what is the first element of robbery?
all elements of thetf must be established
theft is completed as soon as appropriation is complete- corcoran v anderton
intention to permanently deprie must also be shown- mitchel; zerei; vinall
what is the second element of robbery?
force
this can be - D uses force, OR
- D puts someone in fear of being subject to force, OR
- D seeks to put V in fear of force
any amount of force will suffice, force is to be given its ordinary meaning- Dawson v james
what are the rules around force must be used againsr a person?
pickpocketing or applying no force to the person would be guilty of theft
it is up to the jury to decide whether force was used to steal- clouden
snatching may or may not be sufficient. P v DPP ; R v martin
threat of force?
is sufficent- there is no need to show that V was afriad- B & P v DPP
why must force be used?
with the intention to steal, there must be a casual connection between the use of force and the theft must be 'in order to do so'- james
when must force be used?
must be used at the time of the theft or immediatly before; R v Hale. R v Lockley