robbery

Question 1

corocan v anderton

Answer 1

one defendant hit a woman in the back and tugged at her bag. she let go of it and it fell to the ground . the defendants ran off without it, because the woman was screaming to attract attention. the robbery’s was complete , so Ds were guilty. if she didn’t let go out the bag there would be no robbery

Question 2

zerei

Answer 2

D approached V and told them they were going to take his car. D pulled a knife on V and took his car keys. D drive off in the car and abandoned it a mile away. Ds conviction was quashed as abandoning the car far away was not an intention to permanently deprive . so theft was not complete , so no robbery

Question 3

P v DPP

Answer 3

an offender snatched a cigarette from the complainants hand , snatching without direct physical contact was not sufficient to constitute the use of ‘force’ for the purposes of s8 , so no robbery

Question 4

dawson and James

Answer 4

one defendant pushed the victim causing him to loose balance , enabling the other defendant to take his wallet. the jury decides if what had occurred amounted to force. only a small amount was needed

Question 5

clouden

Answer 5

the defendant followed a woman carrying a shopping basket . he approached her from behind and wrenched the basket down and out of her grasp with both hands and ran off with it. this was sufficient force for a conviction for robbery , even though the level of force was relatively small and didn’t involve direct contact

Question 6

B&R V DPP

Answer 6

11/12 boys all surrounded the victim and asked for his mobile phone and money. a number of boys went into his pockets and some items and money were taken. no serious violence was used but he was pushed and his arms were held during the search. V said he didn’t feel ‘particularly threatened’ or ‘scared’ ; and he was not physically assaulted. the court said there was a threat of force even if the victim was not scared.-> the force element was probably satisfied when he was pushed around

Question 7

khan

Answer 7

V handed money to D because he feared that D will be in trouble with the third party. apprehension was a future force not a present one, so there was no robbery

Question 8

hale

Answer 8

two men forced their way into a house. one put his hand over the householder’s mouth to stop her from screaming and the other went upstairs and took a jewellery box. they then tied her up before they left. the hand over the mouth, and the tying up could be force . both took place at the time of the theft/stealing , the force was used in order to steal

Question 9

lockley

Answer 9

the defendant was caught shoplifting cans of beer by the shopkeeper, and then used force on the shopkeeper as he escape. this was robbery as the force was used at the time of stealing and in order to steal

Question 10

robinson

Answer 10

D was owed £7 by a woman. he went to ask her for it and a fight developed between D and the woman’s husband. during the fight a £5 note dropped out of the husband’s pocket. D picked it up and kept it. there was no theft and no robbery , as D had the honest belief that he was entitled to the money

Question 11

intro

Answer 11

D may be liable for robbery , defined in Section 8 of the Theft Act 1968 as stealing , and immediately before or at the time of stealing, and in order to steal , using force or threatening force

Question 12

actus rea

Answer 12

The actus rea is theft , plus the use or threat of force, at the time of stealing , and in order to steal

Question 13

firstly (AR)

Answer 13

Firstly , there must be a theft , defined in S1 as the dishonest appropriation of property belonging to another. Here under S3 there is an appropriation (morris , lawrence, hinks) because there is an assumption of V’s rights [eg.when D takes V’s purse]
(If relevant) appropriation can take place even if D leaves the property behind as in corocan and anderton , which is what D does here
under S4 the property (kelly and lindsay) is eg. a purse , which is tangible personal property
under S5 the property did belong to another (hall, webster) because eg. V had possession of control over the bag

Question 14

secondly (AR)

Answer 14

Secondly, there must be a completed theft , as in corocan V anderton and zerei . Here.the theft was completed when [eg. D took the purse but dropped it when running away]

Question 15

thirdly (if actual force used)

Answer 15

Thirdly, there must be the use or threat of force
if actual force used : The jury must decide what constitutes force , and the amount of force can be small as in Dawson and James , with no need for direct contact, as in Clouden. The force can be against any person , not necessarily against the victim of the theft. However, force must be more than trivial, and cannot simply be taking from a passive victim (P V DPP). Here..eg. force was used , even though it was minimal, when D pushed V over

Question 16

thirdly (if threat used)

Answer 16

Thirdly, there must be the use or threat of force
if threat used: The threat of force can be against any person not necessarily the victim of the theft, force need not be actually used, and the victim need not be in actual fear, as in B v R V DPP. However , the force must be threatened to be used ‘right there and then’ (khan). Here..eg, there was a threat of force when D threatened to hit V , even though he did not actually use force , and V did not show any fear

Question 17

fourthly

Answer 17

Fourthly, the use or threat of force must be immediately before or at the time of the stealing , including a ‘continuing act’ , as in Hale. Here..eg. the force was used at the time of stealing, when D pushed V over whilst he took her purse

Question 18

fifthly

Answer 18

Fifthly, the use or threat of force must be used in order to steal as in Lockley . Here..eg. the force was used in order to steal , when D pushed V over whilst he took her purse , which was necessary to complete the theft

Question 19

the mens rea

Answer 19

the mens rea is the mens rea of theft plus an intention to use or threaten force