Robbery
Section 8 of the Theft Act 1968 provides:
(1) 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.
(2) A
person guilty of robbery, or of an assault with intent to rob, shall
on conviction on indictment be liable to imprisonment for life.
Steals
As robbery is theft aggravated by the threat or use of force, the elements of theft must be established before the defendant can be convicted of robbery. Thus for example, a person who forces another to hand over money, believing that he has a legal right to it, he is not guilty of theft. Compare:
- In R v Robinson, it was alleged that the defendant, who was owed £7 by the victim’s wife, approached the victim, brandishing a knife. A fight followed, during which the victim dropped a £5 note. The defendant picked it up and demanded the remaining £2 owed to him. Allowing the defendant’s appeal against conviction for robbery, the Court of Appeal held that the prosecution had to prove that the defendant was guilty of theft, and that he would not be (under s2(1)(a) of the 1968 Act) if he honestly believed that he had a right in law to deprive the victim of the money, even though he knew he was not entitled to use the knife to get it.
- In R v Forrester, the victim had retained the defendant’s £200 deposit when the defendant’s tenancy terminated. The defendant believed he had been asked to leave without justification and that the deposit was being unfairly withheld. The defendant, accompanied by a friend, went to the victim’s house, burst in when the door was opened and seized some items whilst his friend restrained the victim. His intention was to use the items to bargain for the return of his money. If this failed, he would sell the items and the use money for a deposit on another flat, returning the excess to the victim. The defendant’s conviction for robbery was upheld by the Court of Appeal. It was held that he knew he had no right to the items themselves and so could not claim that he was not dishonest under s2(1)(a).
A temporary appropriation will amount to theft. See: Corcoran v Anderton.
Where the accused has used force on another (or put another person in fear of force) in order to steal but has not achieved the appropriation of any property, and is therefore not guilty of robbery, he can be convicted of assault with intent to rob (s9(2) Theft Act 1968).
Use of Force
The question of whether or not force has been used is a question of fact to be determined by a jury, according to the Court of Appeal in R v Dawson. In practice it appears that very little force is actually required:
- In R v Dawson, the defendant had nudged the victim causing him to lose his balance so that his wallet could be more easily taken. His appeal against a conviction for robbery was refused.
- In R v Clouden, the defendant had pulled on the victim’s handbag to wrench it from her hands. The Court of Appeal held that whilst a snatching of property without resistance from the owner, such as by a pickpocket, should not amount to robbery, the question of whether force has been used ‘on any person’ should be left to the jury. The defendant was held to have been rightly convicted of robbery.
In Order to Steal
The force, or threat of force, must be used in order to steal according to s8(1). Therefore, if D attacks V in order to settle an argument, and having hit V to the ground finds his wallet to have fallen out, D will not be guilty of robbery should he run off with the wallet, because the force was not used by him with the intention of stealing. Similarly, the use of gratuitous violence after a theft would not constitute robbery because the force is not used in order to enable the theft to be carried out.
Immediately Before or at the Time of Stealing
Section 8(1) clearly provides that the force must be used immediately before, or at the time of, stealing, raising the question of for how long theft continues (an issue to be decided by the jury). It has been held that theft is a continuing act. See R v Hale, where D and E entered the victim’s house and while D was upstairs stealing a jewellery box, E was downstairs tying up the victim.
In R v Lockley, the defendant appealed against his conviction of robbery. The defendant, with two others, took cans of beer from an off-licence and when approached by the shopkeeper used violence. The defendant appealed on the basis that the theft was complete when he used the force, but the Court of Appeal followed Hale and dismissed his appeal.
Mens Rea
Although the mens rea of robbery is not specifically mentioned out in s8, it is clear that there must be the mens rea of theft, and the force or threatened force must be in order to steal.