robbery property offences Flashcards
S8 (1) theft act 1968
“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 need for theft
Supposedly self-explanatory, but if the D does not commit Theft then there can be no Robbery
If there is unlawful force but no Theft, an OAP may occur or an Assault with intent to Rob, but there can be no Robbery
force and threat of force
At the simplest level, for a Robbery to be established there must be a theft and force – the question remains as to how that force must manifest
There are three potential manifestations to discover here: infliction of, causing apprehension of and seeking the apprehension of…
force
The most straightforward (easy to work out!) cases will involve the D using force against V while committing a theft
This force must be bodily, and not just against the property
how much force?
The force itself has not be defined in statute, but common law lends itself to the definition that the force should be more than negligible, but need not be serious
Minor bodily contact will not satisfy this element – but pushing and shoving will
Obviously, serious harm is included – the common law seeks to define the lower and more complicated end of the spectrum
P v DPP (2012)
D snatched a lit cigarette from V’s hand, but no contact was physically made with V – D charged with Robbery
On appeal; substituted for theft – the snatching was not sufficient ’force’
There may be applicability for indirect force, such as if D wrenches a shopping basket or handbag from V which then causes force to be inflicted
fear of force
S8 (1) TA describes the act putting the V in ‘fear’ of being subjected to force
Fear is problematic - it relies almost on the bravery of the V for the liability of D, which is considerably inappropriate
apprehension of force
the courts have now interpreted ‘fear’ as the apprehension that force will be used – similarly to assault, fear may not necessarily be relevant
timing of force
V must be caused to apprehend the fear there and then at the time of the theft, for there to be a robbery
Khan 2001
The V handed money to D fearing that if this was not done, D would end up in trouble with a third party (X) who could then hurt V
The apprehension here was for future harm, not present force and while an offence existed (blackmail) it was not Robbery
seeking fear of force
The element of force can be satisfied if the D ‘seeks’ to put V in fear (apprehension) of force
D can be liable if they act with the intent to cause V to apprehend (ulterior mens rea)
Robbery would still apply even if the D uses a fake gun, which the V realizes is fake
linking force and theft
In order to have a complete offence of Robbery, there is the need to link two separate offences for completion
This link does not need to exist between victim or target; you can have robbery where the force is used against a security guard and theft against shopkeeper
The link needs to be either in Time or Intent
temporal link
S8 clarifies that force must be immediately before or at the time of the theft
There must not be a large time gap between the two but there are allowances made for common sense time differences
Hale 1978
D1 and D2 broke into V house, D1 stole jewelry while D2 tied the V up
Held: even though the appropriation may have happened fractionally before the force used – the act of theft can be considered a continuing act
intent link
D must use the force in order to steal, therefore an accidental infliction of force during Theft would not amount to a Robbery
If the D intents to assault V in some way, and then takes the opportunity to steal – that is not a Robbery (although likely would constitute two offences)
