1. ROBBERY
Theft + force or the threat of force.

2. OVERVIEW
•
We understand the law of theft.
•
Robbery is a fairly straightforward application of
the law of theft + some kind of force or
threat.
•
The requirements of robbery are quite simple.

3. OVERVIEW
Theft
Stealing property
Stealing property
belonging to
belonging to
another.
another.
Robbery
Stealing property
Stealing property
belonging to
belonging to
another with
another with
added assault
added assault
Burglary
Stealing property
Stealing property
belonging to
belonging to
another with added
another with added
trespass.
trespass.

4. RECAP
•
R v Gullefer (1990)
•
Why would this have been classified as theft?

5. SESSION OBJECTIVES
•
By the end of the session, all learners will:
•
Be able to apply the law on robbery.
•
Be able to recall the law on robbery.

6. THE BASICS
•
Theft Act 1968, section 8:
•
"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."

7. THE BASICS
Mens
Rea
Actus
Reus
Theft
Theft
Intention to use
or threaten
force
Force or
threat of force
Robbery
On any person
In order to
steal

8. THEFT
•
All elements of theft must be present.
•
R v Robinson (1977)
•
D was owed £7 by V.
•
D threatened V and extracted £5 by force.
•
D was not guilty of robbery. He had not been
dishonest because he believed he was entitled to the
money.

9. THEFT
•
Corcoran v Anderton (1980)
•
D hit a woman in the back and tugged her bag
off her shoulder.
•
V began to scream, so D ran away.
•
Robbery?

10. FORCE OR THREAT OF
FORCE?
•
R v Dawson and James (1976)
•
D pushed V, causing him to lose his balance.
•
D snatched V's wallet.
•
Court of Appeal: "force" is an ordinary word to
be left to the jury. It does not take much. A
mere push will do.

11. FORCE OR THREAT OF
FORCE?
•
P v DPP (2012)
•
D snatched a cigarette from V's hand without
touching him.
•
D was not guilty of robbery.
•
There must be some kind of physical contact
between D and V.

12. FORCE OR THREAT OF
FORCE?
•
B and R v DPP (2007)
•
V was stopped by a bunch of other schoolboys.
•
They surrounded him and took his mobile, watch, and travel
card.
•
V said he did not feel threatened or scared.
•
Ds were still guilty of robbery. They had intended to
threaten force in order to steal his possessions.

13. FORCE OR THREAT OF
FORCE?
•
Robin walks into the St Helens branch of HSBC
with a fake gun. He aims it at an innocent
customer's head and demands that the cashier
empty the register. The cashier does as she is
told and Robin runs away with the cash.
•
Is Robin guilty of robbery?

14. IMMEDIATELY BEFORE OR AT
THE TIME OF STEALING?
•
R v Vinall (2011)
•
D punched V, causing him to fall off his bicycle.
•
V ran off and D chased.
•
•
D gave up and returned to the scene where they nicked
his bike.
They took the bike and then abandoned it 50 yards away.

15. IMMEDIATELY BEFORE OR AT
THE TIME OF STEALING?
•
D's conviction for robbery was quashed by the Court of
Appeal.
•
It was possible that he formed the "intention to
permanently deprive" only when the bicycle was
abandoned.
•
This meant that the force might not have been
"immediately before" the theft. The time delay was too
big.

16. FORCE IN ORDER TO STEAL?
•
If the force was used for a purpose other than
stealing, there will be no robbery.
•
If D has a fight with V and knocks him out, he
might discover V's wallet lying on the ground. If
he takes it, there is a theft but no robbery.