Robbery
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
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
• 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
• 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
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
• 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
• 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
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
• 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)
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)
Exam Q’s