Transcript
ROBBERYTheft + force or the threat of force.
OVERVIEW
• We understand the law of theft.
• Robbery is a fairly straightforward application of the law of theft + some kind of force or threat.
• The requirements of robbery are quite simple.
OVERVIEW
Theft
Robbery
Burglary
Stealing property
belonging toanother.
Stealing property
belonging toanother.
Stealing property
belonging toanother with
added assault
Stealing property
belonging toanother with
added assault
Stealing property
belonging toanother with
addedtrespass.
Stealing property
belonging toanother with
addedtrespass.
RECAP
• R v Gullefer (1990)
• Why would this have been classified as theft?
SESSION OBJECTIVES
• By the end of the session, all learners will:
• Be able to apply the law on robbery.
• Be able to recall the law on robbery.
THE BASICS
• Theft Act 1968, section 8:
• "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."
THE BASICS
Robbery
Theft
Force orthreat of
forceOn any person
In order to steal
Actus Reus
Theft
Intention to use
or threaten force
Mens Rea
THEFT
• All elements of theft must be present.
• R v Robinson (1977)
• D was owed £7 by V.
• D threatened V and extracted £5 by force.
• D was not guilty of robbery. He had not been dishonest because he believed he was entitled to the money.
THEFT
• Corcoran v Anderton (1980)
• D hit a woman in the back and tugged her bag off her shoulder.
• V began to scream, so D ran away.
• Robbery?
FORCE OR THREAT OF FORCE?
• R v Dawson and James (1976)
• D pushed V, causing him to lose his balance.
• D snatched V's wallet.
• Court of Appeal: "force" is an ordinary word to be left to the jury. It does not take much. A mere push will do.
FORCE OR THREAT OF FORCE?
• P v DPP (2012)
• D snatched a cigarette from V's hand without touching him.
• D was not guilty of robbery.
• There must be some kind of physical contact between D and V.
FORCE OR THREAT OF FORCE?
• B and R v DPP (2007)
• V was stopped by a bunch of other schoolboys.
• They surrounded him and took his mobile, watch, and travel card.
• V said he did not feel threatened or scared.
• Ds were still guilty of robbery. They had intended to threaten force in order to steal his possessions.
FORCE OR THREAT OF FORCE?
• Robin walks into the St Helens branch of HSBC with a fake gun. He aims it at an innocent customer's head and demands that the cashier empty the register. The cashier does as she is told and Robin runs away with the cash.
• Is Robin guilty of robbery?
IMMEDIATELY BEFORE OR AT THE TIME OF
STEALING?• R v Vinall (2011)
• D punched V, causing him to fall off his bicycle.
• V ran off and D chased.
• D gave up and returned to the scene where they nicked his bike.
• They took the bike and then abandoned it 50 yards away.
IMMEDIATELY BEFORE OR AT THE TIME OF
STEALING?• D's conviction for robbery was quashed by the
Court of Appeal.
• It was possible that he formed the "intention to permanently deprive" only when the bicycle was abandoned.
• This meant that the force might not have been "immediately before" the theft. The time delay was too big.
FORCE IN ORDER TO STEAL?
• If the force was used for a purpose other than stealing, there will be no robbery.
• If D has a fight with V and knocks him out, he might discover V's wallet lying on the ground. If he takes it, there is a theft but no robbery.
top related