Robbery Flashcards
What are the elements of robbery?
Actus reus
* Actus reus of theft
* Force (in one of three ways- uses force, puts any person in fear or seeks to put any person in fear of being then and there subjected to force)
* On any person
* Use or threat of force immediately before or at the time of stealing
Mens Rea
* Mens rea of theft
* Intend to use force in order to steal
What are the three ways in which force or use of force can be satisfied?
Uses force; or
- Puts a person in fear of being then and there subjected to force; or
- Seeks to put a person in fear of being then and there subjected to force.
Does force require violence?
No
Can force be applied through property?
Yes
R v Clouden [1987] Crim LR 56
FACTS: The defendant approached the victim from behind, wrenched her shopping bag out of her grasp with his hands and ran off.
HELD: The Court of Appeal said that force used against the property must cause force against the person for this element to be satisfied. Force to detach property can count as force on the person and had done so here, so the conviction was upheld.
Does you the use of force have to be directed at the person they are stealing from?
No, it can be any person.
Can force be applied through property?
Yes, as long as the force against the property caused force against the person
Abi comes across Dan who is walking his dog, Poppy in the park. Abi scoops up Poppy and holds a knife to Poppy’s throat, saying menacingly ‘Give me your wallet or the dog cops it.’ Dan gives Abi his wallet.
Assume a theft has been committed. Is Abi criminally liable for robbery?
No- the force element is missing
This is not robbery. Although she has stolen Dan’s wallet and threatened force immediately before stealing and in order to steal she hasn’t used force, or put any person in fear of force nor has she sought to put any person in fear of being subjected to force. Making a person (Dan) fear a dog, or indeed another person would be subjected to force isn’t included in the definition.
Ben insults Matt so Matt punches Ben in the face. As a result Ben’s wallet falls out of his pocket. Matt picks up the wallet and runs off with it.
No- he has not used force in order to steal
Matt has stolen. He has used force on Ben and has done so immediately before stealing. However, this is not robbery as he has not done so in order to steal.
Abdul goes into the local shop and tells Ravi, who is behind the counter, that he knows where Ravi’s mother lives and unless Ravi gives him five packets of cigarettes he will break Ravi’s mother’s leg. Ravi gives Abdul cigarettes.
Assume a theft has been committed. Is Abdul criminally liable for robbery?
No- the force element is missing
Abdul has stolen and immediately before and in order to do so threatened force, but there is nobody who is frightened that they will be subjected to force and nobody whom Abdul is seeking to put in fear of being subjected to force.
A man goes to sit behind a lady aged 85 on a bus. The lady has put her handbag on the seat beside her. The man leans forward and says to her, ‘if you don’t let me take your handbag, you will get punched!’ The lady is hearing impaired so does not hear what the man has said. The man realises she does not hear. When the bus approaches a stop, he grabs the handbag and jumps off the bus.
Has the man committed robbery?
The man has committed robbery because force can be applied to the handbag as well as to the person.
The man has not committed robbery because the force element of robbery is missing.
The man has committed robbery.
The man has not committed robbery because he has not used force in order to steal.
The man may have committed robbery if the jury decides the appropriation is continuing.
The man has committed robbery.
Correct. He has sought to put the lady in fear of being then and there subjected to force. He has done this before stealing and in order to steal. He steals the bag when he grabs it.
The other options are incorrect.
‘Force’ can be established in three ways. Actual use of force is only one of them.
It is not necessary to show that there is a causal link between the force and the theft to establish the actus reus of robbery. The requirement for a causal link in the mens rea is satisfied here– he has used force in order to steal.
It is for the jury to decide when an appropriation has come to an end. However, where force is used or threatened before the appropriation takes place, it is unnecessary to apply the continuing act principle from R v Hale.
For robbery, the force must be used or threatened against a person, not property, R v Clouden.
A woman goes into the local shop and tells the shopkeeper, who is behind the counter, that she knows the house where the shopkeeper’s mother lives, several villages away. The woman says that unless the shopkeeper gives her five packets of cigarettes, she will break the mother’s leg. The shopkeeper is on the telephone to his mother who hears the woman’s threat and is terrified. The shopkeeper gives the woman the cigarettes.
Has the woman committed robbery?
The woman has committed robbery as the shopkeeper is put in fear then and there that his mother will be subjected to force.
The woman has committed robbery if the shopkeeper’s mother fears she will carry out her threat.
The woman has not committed robbery because any force the shopkeeper’s mother might fear will be in the future.
The woman has not committed robbery because the shopkeeper agrees to give her the cigarettes.
The woman has not committed robbery if she does not know that the shopkeeper’s mother is terrified.
The woman has not committed robbery because any force the shopkeeper’s mother might fear will be in the future.
Correct. This answer reflects the wording of s 8(1) Theft Act 1968 and the requirement that a person is put in fear of being then and there subjected to force. The intended victim of the force (here the shopkeeper’s mother) is not present and lives several villages away, so any force would be in the future.
The other options are incorrect.
In the absence of a use of force, it must be shown that someone fears that they will be subjected to force there and then or that the defendant seeks to make them fear this. Sometime in the future is not enough.
The full offence of theft must be established before considering the other elements of the robbery offence. Appropriation can occur even where the owner consents to it, see R v Gomez.
It is not enough that someone fears that force will be used on another person. The person threatened must fear that they will be subjected to force then and there
A woman is walking her dog in the park. A man comes up to her and says quietly, so as not to attract attention from others in the park, ‘give me your handbag or I will kick your dog.’ The woman gives the man her handbag. The man kicks the dog anyway.
Has the man committed robbery?
Yes. The man has stolen, threatened force on the dog and done so immediately before stealing and in order to steal.
No. The man has stolen and used force, but he did not use the force immediately before or at the time of stealing and in order to steal.
No. The man has not used force on any person.
No. The man has threatened force, but not against the person from whom he has stolen.
Yes. The man has stolen and used force on the dog.
No. The man has not used force on any person.
Correct. He has not used force on any person or put or sought to put any person in fear of being then and there subjected to force as the threat is directed at the dog.
The other options are incorrect.
‘Force’ can be satisfied in three ways; actual use of force, putting someone in fear that they will be then and there subjected to force, or seeking to put someone in fear that they will be then and there subjected to force.
The force used or threatened does not have to be directed towards the person from whom the property is stolen.
The force used or threatened must be against a person, not property (and a dog is considered property for these purposes).
Appropriation may be a continuous act and it is for the jury to decide whether it has come to an end. If force is used or threatened during the continuation of the appropriation, the defendant may be liable for robbery, **R v Hale. **
A boy cuts the shoulder strap of a woman’s bag and the bag falls to the ground. The boy picks it up and runs off with it. He goes around a corner, looks in the bag and can find nothing he considers worth taking. He leaves the bag on the ground. The woman felt nothing and didn’t notice that her bag was missing until a few minutes later. The bag is later returned to the woman.
Has the boy committed robbery?
The boy has not committed robbery as a jury would not find the boy dishonest in these circumstances.
The boy has committed robbery as he has used force on the woman through an object.
The boy has not committed robbery as he has not appropriated property.
The boy has not committed robbery as he has not used force against a person.
The boy has not committed robbery because he had no intention to permanently deprive the woman of the bag.
The boy has not committed robbery as he has not used force against a person.
Correct. The woman did not feel the indirect contact so this will not be enough to constitute force, see P and others v DPP.
The other options are incorrect.
While force does not require violence, force used against property must cause force against the person for robbery to apply.
Force to detach property may count as force on the person. However, in cases of indirect contact, if it is very minimal, it will not be enough for robbery to apply.
The full offence of theft must be established before considering whether it becomes robbery. The boy has appropriated property when he cut the shoulder strap of the woman’s bag, as he assumes a right of the owner, s 3(1) Theft Act 1968 and R v Morris. The boy is clearly dishonest here and the jury would find him so even if they went on to apply the Ivey v Genting Casinos test. A conditional intention to permanently deprive will suffice for the purposes of theft, AG’s Ref (Nos 1&2 of 1979).
A woman who is holding a laptop is walking home with her daughter when a man approaches them, points at the daughter and screams at the woman: “Give me your laptop or I’ll break the girl’s neck.” His intention is to cause them both to fear that he will use the violence he threatens and then steal the laptop. The woman throws the laptop at the man who takes it and the woman and her daughter run away. The man is later caught and charged with robbery.
Can the man be guilty of robbery?
A. No, as he did not use actual force on any person.
B. No, as his threats were directed at the daughter and not the woman who was the person in possession of the laptop.
C. Yes, as he has stolen the laptop and immediately before and in order to do so has caused the woman and her daughter harassment, alarm or distress.
D. Yes, as he has stolen the laptop and immediately before and in order to do so has put the daughter in fear of being then and there subjected to force.
E. No, as he did not have with him a firearm or offensive weapon.
D - Yes, as he has stolen the laptop and immediately before and in order to do so has put the daughter in fear of being then and there subjected to force.
