G153 Criminal Law: Offences Against Property ROBBERY By the end of this unit, you should be able to: Explain the actus reus and mens rea of robbery Evaluate the current law on robbery. Robbery is an indictable offence, which means that it is tried in the . It carries a maximum of a life sentence, and remember that a second conviction of robbery may lead to an automatic life sentence if serious under the Crime (Sentences) Act 1997. So, what is robbery? Simply put.... Theft + Violence = Robbery All elements immediately before s.8 Theft Act 1968 in s.2-8 of the or at the time of Theft Act 1968 the theft So... you have to have a complete theft. As revision, find and list all elements of theft below: B D M Y T R E P O R P A P 1. I S R T P S I V N O E K E R T V E V T U J T O Q G R 2. X Z Q O H D N S P F V N M 3. I N T E N T I O N D P I A Y L T S E N O H S I D G N 4. A P T I I J R N C P T N E 5. A P P R O P R I A T I O N Y J Y Q O P C Y U R V L T G Q D S A O B W U Q Y E L G X R V X H U X Q L G B Y D E P R I V E B B X G Z K S O G G G R W A M S W V A 1 G153 Criminal Law: Offences Against Property ACTUS REUS The actus reus is that for theft, plus force or the threat of force on any person immediately before or at the time of stealing. 1. THEFT You need a completed theft for robbery. One element of theft is missing, then there is no robbery! However, listen to the facts of the following case, and then answer this question: How does theft for robbery differ from regular theft? Corcoran v Anderton 1980 Facts: Ratio: D assumed the rights when he grabbed it, so therefore the theft was complete. Thus, DD were convicted of robbery. In the words of the court there was “no clearer instance of robbery”. 2. FORCE OR THREAT OF FORCE The force does not have to be directly applied to a person – it can be property. It is quite widely interpreted and includes verbal threats and gestures. Why? Well, waving a knife at someone can be quite an effective threat as can a gun pointed at your head... you don’t need the words! Incidently, V doesn’t need to even be scared! Well... he might be blind and not see the knife. The question of whether it is a threat is a question of , and so it is left to the . Remember R v Bentham 2005? Facts: Threat: 2 G153 Criminal Law: Offences Against Property TASK: Read the following two scenarios. Has a robbery been committed? Is there force? D pulls V’s bag, so that it slides off V’s shoulder Bag on the bench, next to V, and D snatches it. R v Clouden 1987 Facts: Ratio: The CA held that force applied to property was sufficient for robbery, and confirms the earlier case of Dawson (see below). This decision has been criticised by the Criminal Law Revision Committee in their 8th report, who said that if this was always enough, the number of robberies would double. Do you agree? R v Dawson & James 1976 *KEY CASE* Facts: D1 nudged V in the back, and he lost his Ratio: balance. D2 took the wallet. Is this enough ‘force’ to constitute a robbery? 3. ON ANY PERSON So what does this mean? Well, remember the Securitas robbery... What was the force? Who was that against? This means that D can threaten X and steal from Y. There is a common situation: sthgeoa 4. IMMEDIATELY BEFORE OR AT THE TIME OF... Remember that theft is a act. It means that D1 can apply the force and D2 completes the theft. The issue here is how close the force and the actual theft need to be – there can clearly be a temporal lapse... but how far apart? What if the force is applied after the robbery and is unconnected? R v Gregory 1983 3 G153 Criminal Law: Offences Against Property R v Hale 1978 *KEY CASE* Facts: Ratio: CA upheld the conviction, holding that as it was a continuing act, the violence was at the same time. Eveleigh LJ “To say that the conduct is over and done as soon as he laid hands on the property... is contrary to common sense and to the natural meaning of the words... the act of appropriation does not suddenly cease. It is a continous act and it is a matter for the jury to decide whether or not the act of appropriation has finished... As a matter of common sense [D] was in the course of committing theft; he was stealing.” R v Lockley 1995 CA Facts: DD stole beer cans from an off licence Ratio: and used force on the owner on the way out. 5. FORCE IN ORDER TO STEAL What does this mean...? Well, the force must be used to steal, not a by-product. E.g. if Bob punches Valerie, and money falls out of her pocket. He decides to pick it up and keep it. MENS REA SIMPLE!!! Theft + Intentional Recklessness. [Come on... what is the test for recklessness? Which case?] Case: Test: R v Robinson 1977 Facts: Ratio: 4 G153 Criminal Law: Offences Against Property EVALUATION % of robberies end in conviction. What does this tell us about the current law on robbery? The majority of these only use the of force. Match the area with the criticism below: Degree of Force Required There has been a massive growth in robberies, e.g. mobile phones. The courts are encouraging prison sentences, but the majority are carried out by those under 18, and they get community sentences. No distinction between the different types of The slightest amount could lead to a life robbery sentence! The decision is left to the jury (always dodgy!) Increase in robberies Here, the theft doesn’t need to be completed, an “intent to steal or attempt to steal using force for that purpose”. Prof. Andrew Ashworth (2002) suggest that there Different meanings of appropriation in theft and should be two types. The lesser, which uses a robbery slight force, should be triable in the MC, and the serious which uses greater force should be heard in the Crown Court. This will save ..................... and ......................... Differences to burglary... Generally, theft law has decided that the appropriation takes place at one moment in time [R v Atakpu & Abrahams 1994], however in robbery, theft is a continuing act. Why should the interpretation of the same crime be so different? 5 G153 Criminal Law: Offences Against Property REVISION QUESTIONS: 1. What is the definition of robbery? 2. What is the maximum penalty? 3. What two things make robbery different from theft? 4. Do you need to direct force at the victim? 5. How much force is necessary? 6. Should the courts distinguish between types of robbery? 7. Why was D’s conviction quashed in Robinson? 8. How was appropriation treated in Hale? 9. What doubts were expressed by the Criminal Law Revision Committee in Clouden? HAS THERE BEEN A ROBBERY IN THE FOLLOWING SITUATIONS: 1. Dave holds the knife to the threat of a 3 year old girl and orders the child’s mother to hand over her bag or he will ‘slit her throat’. The mother hands over her bag. 2. Carla snatches a bag from Des. Des is so surprised that she lets go of the bag and Carla runs off with it. 3. Albert gets into a fight with Bob and knocks him out. While on the floor, Albert spots his rolex and decides to steal it. SECTION C QUESTION: Adrian’s wife owes Brian £10. Brian sees Adrian in the street and threatens to beat him up unless he gives him £10. Adrian hands over the money. Brian enters a shopping mall. He tries to snatch a bag from a shopper, Carol, but she resists and it falls to the ground. Brian runs off. He goes into a supermarket and takes a bottle of whisky from the shelf and puts it in his pocket. Dan, another shopper, sees him but Brian pushes Dan away and leaves without paying. He is getting into his car outside when a security guard, Elvis, approaches him. Brian drives his car at Elvis who jumps out of the way and Brian drives off. Evaluate the accuracy of each of the four statements A, B, C, and D individually, as they apply to the facts in the above scenario. Statement A: Brian is liable for robbery when he forces Adrian to hand him £10 Statement B: Brian is liable for robbery when he snatches at Carol’s bag. Statement C: Brian is liable for robbery in the supermarket. Statement D: Brian is guilty of robbery when he drives his car at Elvis. 6 G153 Criminal Law: Offences Against Property Theft Act 1968 8 Robbery (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.