You should also be able to [AO2] Evaluate the current state of the law Apply your understanding to a series of application questions.

Transcription

1 OFFENCES AGAINST PROPERTY: ROBBERY By the end of this unit, you should be able to [AO1]: Explain the mens rea and actus reus of robbery Understand the differences between theft and theft in robbery You should also be able to [AO2] Evaluate the current state of the law Apply your understanding to a series of application questions. Introduction: Robbery requires theft! As revision, find and list all elements of theft below: B D M Y T R E P O R P A P 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 X Z Q O H D N S P F V N M 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 A P T I I J R N C P T N E 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

2 SOME BASICS: 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 So, what is robbery? Simply put... Theft + Violence = Robbery All elements immediately before s.8 Theft Act 1968 in s.2-6 of the or at the time of Theft Act 1968 the theft on a person in order to steal Student Task Look at these scenarios: Which do you think are robberies? D tells V, who is blind, that he has a knife and will stab him unless V hands over his wallet. D has no knife. D pushes V in the back and as he falls, D2 takes V s wallet D hits V, and money falls out of V s pocket. D picks it up and keeps it. D steals a pack of beer from an Off Licence, and on the way out pushes the owner D takes V s pet poodle hostage and threatens to kill it unless V hands over her diamond necklace. D takes V and his family hostage four days before he steals money from V s bank 2

3 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. ELEMENT ONE: COMPLETED THEFT You need a completed theft for robbery. One element of theft is missing, then there is no robbery! However, the courts have been rather more generous with their interpretation of theft in robbery than regular theft a) Appropriation Corcoran v Anderton 1980 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. b) Intention to permanently deprive R v Raphael 2008 D forcibly took V s car and then offered V the chance to buy it back for 500 Ratio Actually charged with conspiracy to rob This can be compared with R v Mitchell 2008, where taking a car for the purposes of escaping the police in a chase and then abandoning it was not intention to permanently deprive in the law of theft, and therefore not robbery. How does theft for robbery differ from regular theft? 3

4 ELEMENT TWO: FORCE OR THREAT OF FORCE The force does not have to be directly applied to a person it can be property, as long as it in control of that person. 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, it also does not mean an assault either! V doesn t need to even be scared. 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. On any Person So what does this mean? This means that D can threaten X and steal from Y. Remember the Securitas robbery... Who was it applied to there? Normally this will mean that D is taking a sthgeoa Student Thinking: Does the threat even need to be real? R v Bentham

5 HOW MUCH FORCE AND AGAINST WHO? R v Clouden 1987 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 8 th 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* D1 nudged V in the back, and he lost his balance. D2 took the wallet. Ratio: AO2 DEVELOPMENT: How might the decision in Dawson & James be criticised as unfair to defendants charged with the serious indictable offence of robbery? 5

6 ELEMENT THREE: IMMEDIATELY BEFORE OR AT THE TIME OF, IN ORDER TO STEAL First: immediately before this is quite a flexible concept. Remember the Securitas robbery? The Manager and his family were abducted the evening before the robbery. Problem One: Two Ds, one applies the force, one steals how do we tell if it was at the time of? Remember: according to Gomez and Atakpu, appropriation is a one-off event in theft. R v Hale 1978 *KEY CASE* 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. Problem Two: Force applied after the theft, whilst escaping R v Lockley 1995 CA DD stole beer cans from an off licence and used force on the owner on the way out. Ratio: QU: How did the decision in Hale influence the result in Lockley? 6

7 Problem Three: D hits V and money falls out of V s pocket, and D picks up the money and decides to keep it. R v Robinson 1977* Ratio: * D believed that he had the right in law to take it how might this affect his liability for the theft? Think back to what you know about dishonesty. MENS REA Well, it s not actually mentioned in the section at all. So, therefore it must be that for the theft, and then intention or subjective recklessness as to the use or threat of force. Complete the diagram below to show your understanding: THEFT ELEMENTS USE OF FORCE: Intention OR Case: 2. Subjective recklessness Case: 7

8 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 robbery The slightest amount could lead to a life 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. Different meanings of appropriation in theft and robbery Prof. Andrew Ashworth (2002) suggest that there should be two types. The lesser, which uses a 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? 8

9 REVISION QUESTIONS & PROBLEMS: 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. 9

10 10