1. Robbery

2. Lesson Objectives I will be able to state the definition of robbery I will be able to explain the actus reus and mens rea of robbery I will be able to explain cases that illustrate robbery I will be able to apply the rules to a given situation

3. Robbery Robbery can be seen very simply as theft with force The offence of robbery is defined in the Theft Act 1968, s8(1) as: 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

4. Robbery is, therefore, an aggravated form of theft. The actus reus is: – The actus reus of theft – Use of force or putting or seeking to put any person in fear of subjection to force in order to steal immediately before or at the time of stealing The mens rea is: – The mens rea of theft – Intent or recklessness as to the use or threat or force

5. Therefore, all the limitations to the offence of theft, such as the limits on what can be stolen, are equally applicable. There are a number of points to be considered: – What amounts to force on a person? – What amounts to a threat of force on a person? – When does the force or threat of force have to take place? – What connection must there be between the force and the theft? It is essential that the offence of theft has been committed before there can be a conviction for robbery

6. What amounts to force or threat of force on a person? The word ‘force’ is not defined in the Act. However, the force, or threat of force must be sufficient to be noticeable, but not necessarily to the victim – waving a knife at a blind man would probably be sufficient What would not be sufficient would be the threat of future violence – this would not fulfil the definition and would probably be blackmail

7. There is no need to use any technical meaning to the term ‘force’ – Dawson and James (1976) – force is required for robbery, but the word has no special meaning; it is up to the jury to decide whether the defendant’s actions amounted to force It appears that it does not matter whether the victim is actually put in fear or not: it is the defendant's intention that matters. The fact that the victim was not afraid does not mean the defendant did not attempt to put fear in him. B and R v DPP (2007) – as long as the defendant's intention is to put the victim in fear of violence, it does not matter whether he in fact does so

8. It also appears that there does not have to be direct force on the victim. The word force is all that is required, so the jury can decide if it was sufficient. Clouden (1987) – the force does not have to be direct force on the victim; in this case it was to her bag It is also the case that the threat does not have to be as the victim imagines if it is intended to cause fear – Bentham (2005) – so long as there is the intention to create fear, it does not matter that the threat was not real; in this case, the defendant used his fingers inside his jacket to make it look like he was holding a gun

9. When does the force or threat of force have to take place? The importance of this question is that the definition requires the force or threat of force to take place immediately before or at the time of stealing This deliberately makes the time when the force is used fairly fluid within the overall time that the crime took place Hale (1978) – the act of stealing can be a continuing act; the jury can decide when the appropriation is complete

10. In some cases the actual stealing and appropriation may be very brief Corcoran and Anderton (1980) – knocking a handbag out of the victim’s grasp with force was sufficient for there to be a robbery even though the robber did not take the bag At the other end of the scale, a line must be drawn even though continuing possession of the goods stolen would appear to make it a continuing act – Atakpu (1994)

11. What connection must there be between the force and the theft? The force or threat of force must be used in order to steal. If the force or threat of force is used for a different purpose (such as rape), then it is not robbery. Where the force is used to allow the theft to happen, then it can be robbery (keys to a building)

12. Exam Q’s