CRIMES PROJECT

A CRITICAL ANALYSIS OF ENGLISH

CASES REGARDING ROBBERY

Submitted by,
Amithab Sankar,
1477
Semester 3
 R v. ROBINSON [1977] Crim LR 173

FACTS:
The defendant was owed £7 by a woman. He approached the woman’s husband
brandishing a knife, and a fight ensued during which the woman’s husband dropped a £5
note. The defendant picked up the £5 note and demanded the remaining £2 owed to him. The
defendant was convicted of robbery contrary to section 8(1) Theft Act 1968. The defendant
appealed against his conviction.

ISSUES:
The crime of robbery is an aggravated type of theft and it is, therefore, necessary for
the prosecution to prove theft under section 1(1) Theft Act 1968. The mens rea for theft is
dishonesty and an intention to deprive the other of the property. A defendant will not have
appropriated the property dishonestly if he appropriates it in the belief that he has the legal
right to appropriate the property for himself under section 2(1)(a) Theft Act 1968. A
defendant will not have committed the offence of theft, and, therefore, cannot have
committed the offence of robbery even though he used force to acquire the property and
knew he was not permitted to use such force to acquire the property, if he believed that he
had a right to appropriate the property.

HELD:
The Court of Appeal quashed the defendant’s conviction for robbery. As he honestly
believed he was entitled to the money in law, he did not have the requisite mens rea for theft,
and because proof of theft is a necessary pre-requisite for proof of a robbery, the defendant
could not have committed a robbery.

CRITICAL ANALYSIS:
In order to constitute the offence of theft, there must be mensrea of dishonesty and to
deprive the other of property. In the present case, the accused had no menrea since he
believed that he had the right to acquire the money using force. Here, the accused was legally
entitled to the money that he owed to the woman and therefore his act in getting the money
was justified.
 R v. FORRESTER [1992] Crim LR 793

FACTS:
The accused was a tenant of the complainant’s property and had deposited £200 with
the complainant as a security amount. When the tenancy was terminated, the complainant
retained the money and did not give the amount back to the accused. The accused having
believed that he had been asked to leave without justification and that the deposit was being
unfairly withheld, accompanied by a friend, went to the house of the complainant. The
accused and his friend burst in when the door was opened and seized some items while his
friend restrained the complainant.

ISSUES:
In this case, the intention of the accused was to use the items to bargain for the return
of his money. If this failed, he would sell the items and use money for a deposit on another
flat, returning the excess to the complainant. Here, the accused had the mesrea to deprive the
other of the property though it was to benefit for the loss caused by the complainant.

HELD:
The conviction of the accused for robbery was upheld by the Court of Appeal. It was
held by the court that the accused had known that he had no right to the items and therefore
cannot claim he wasn’t dishonest.

CRITICAL ANALYSIS:
The dishonest intention which is the necessary constituent of theft is clearly brought
out in the above case. The seizing of the items of the complainant by the accused was to
deprive him of his property which itself shows the mensrea of the accused though it was to
benefit the loss suffered to him by the complainant.

CORCORAN v. ANDERTON (1980) 71 Cr App R 104

FACTS:
A woman was walking in front of a park with her handbag. Two men (the
defendants), with an intention to steal her handbag, came running, knocked her down and
grabbed her handbag. She screamed and held to the bag. They let go of the bag and ran off
empty handed.

ISSUES:
 The appeal raised by the accused was that though they had the intention to steal, at
no time did they have the sole control of the bag. The other important issues which were
taken into consideration were, if the accused had the intention to steal and if they had the
intention, were they successful in the attempt and would only a successful attempt be
punished.

HELD:
The court held that a temporary appropriation will amount to theft. An appropriation
had taken place with the relevant dishonest intent to permanently deprive the woman of her
bag. It was irrelevant whether they left empty handed or they never gained the full control of
the bag since touching property is sufficient to amount to an appropriation.

CRITICAL ANALYSIS:
In this case, though there was not a successful robbery, the mere attempt to steal
amounted to robbery. The accused had not actually taken the bag and had appropriated the
bag only for a short period of time which amounted to robbery. This tells us about the wider
scope of robbery.

R v. CLOUDEN [1987] Crim LR 56

FACTS:
The defendant approached the victim from behind whilst she was carrying a shopping
basket in her left hand. He wrenched the basket down from her grasp and ran off with it. The
defendant was convicted of robbery under section 8(1) Theft Act 1968 and appealed against
his conviction claiming the wrenching of the basket did not constitute the use of force on any
person and, therefore, the trial judge’s direction to the jury regarding the use of force was
deficient.

ISSUES:
Robbery is an aggravated type of theft and so proof of a theft is necessary together
with the use of force on any person immediately before or at the time of the theft
under section 8(1) Theft Act 1968. The defendant’s argument that the wrenching of the
basket could not amount to the use of force on any person was rejected by the Court of
Appeal. There is no distinction to be found between the use of force on a person and the use
of force to property which causes force to the person. The question of whether force has been
applied is a question of fact for the jury to decide. It was open to the jury to find that the
wrenching of a shopping basket from the victim’s hand amounted to the requisite use of force
to constitute the offence of robbery.

HELD:
The defendant’s conviction for robbery was upheld. The wrenching of a basket from a
victim’s hand could constitute the requisite use of force under section 8(1) Theft Act 1968.

CRITICAL ANALYSIS:
The force used in committing robbery need not be the force on the actual body of the
person, the force applied on any object with that person or which causes any change in that
person is enough to constitute the offence of robbery. In the present case, the accused only
snatched the basket down from the grasp of the complainant showing that this was sufficient
to cause the crime.

R v. HALE (1978) Cr App R 415

FACTS:
Two defendants entered the victim’s house and stole her jewellery box from her
bedroom. After having taken the box they tied her up. They were convicted of robbery and
appealed against their convictions on the basis that the offence of theft was complete when
they took possession of the jewellery box and they, therefore, did not use force immediately
before or at the time of stealing.

ISSUES:
A defendant commits the offence of robbery contrary to section 8(1) Theft Act
1968 if he commits a theft, and immediately before or at the time of the theft, uses force on
any person. The submission that the theft was complete when the jewellery box was
appropriated and that force was, therefore, not used upon the victim until after the theft had
taken place was rejected as being contrary to common sense. The act of appropriation does
not come to an end abruptly but is a continuing act which comes to an end when the jury
decides it has come to an end, having considered the whole course of conduct of the
defendants.

HELD:
The defendants’ convictions for robbery were upheld. The whole course of conduct is
considered as stealing, and appropriation does not immediately finish when the defendant’s
conduct meets the minimum essential requirements for appropriation. The theft should be
viewed in its entirety which comes to an end when the jury decides it does.

CRITICAL ANALYSIS:
According to the Section 8(1) of the theft Act1968, in order to constitute robbery,
force must be used immediately before or at the time of stealing. However in the present case,
the court took a different decision as the force was used after the completion of the theft. The
court also remarked that, ‘the submission that the theft was complete when the jewellery box
was appropriated and that force was, therefore, not used upon the victim until after the theft
had taken place was rejected as being contrary to common sense’. Here, the use of force was
a part of the theft though it was after the completion of the theft and therefore constitutes
robbery.