Robbery (AQA A-Level Law): Revision Notes
Robbery
Definition and statutory provision
Robbery is a property offence defined under section 8 of the Theft Act 1968. This offence combines the basic elements of theft with the additional element of force or the threat of force.
The statutory definition states:
"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."
This definition is lengthy and contains several distinct components that must all be satisfied for a robbery conviction. It is essential to learn this definition precisely as it appears in the statute, as it forms the foundation for understanding how the offence is constructed.
Exam Guidance
When answering questions on robbery, break down the section 8 definition into its constituent parts:
- (1) steals
- (2) immediately before or at the time of doing so
- (3) in order to do so
- (4) uses force or puts/seeks to put any person in fear of force
This systematic approach will help you apply the law accurately to scenario questions.
Actus reus of robbery
The actus reus of robbery consists of four essential components, each of which must be established for the offence to be complete. Understanding each component and how they interact is crucial for analyzing robbery scenarios.
Component 1: Steals
The defendant must commit a completed theft under sections 1-6 of the Theft Act 1968. This means all elements of theft must be present—there must be a dishonest appropriation of property belonging to another with the intention to permanently deprive.
This requirement creates a fundamental principle: if there is no theft, there cannot be robbery. The offence of robbery is entirely dependent on a theft having occurred. Without a completed theft, any force used might constitute another offence (such as assault or battery), but it cannot amount to robbery.
Key Case: R v Robinson (1977)
Facts: The defendant was owed £7 by the victim's wife. Robinson approached the victim with a knife, and during the confrontation, the victim dropped a £5 note which Robinson picked up and kept.
Legal Principle: The Court of Appeal held that Robinson could not be guilty of robbery because he lacked the mens rea for theft. He genuinely believed he had a legal right to the money and to deprive the owner of it. Under section 2(1)(a) of the Theft Act 1968, a person is not dishonest if they believe they have a legal right to the property. Therefore, although Robinson used force (the knife), he had not committed theft, meaning the robbery charge could not succeed.
Significance: This case demonstrates that the theft element must be fully established, including the requirement of dishonesty. Even where force is clearly used, if the defendant is not dishonest according to the test in Barton and Booth (2020), there is no theft and therefore no robbery.
Component 2: Immediately before or at the time of doing so
The timing of the force or threat of force is crucial. The force must be applied either immediately before the theft begins or at the same time as the theft is taking place. Once the theft is complete, any force used subsequently cannot satisfy the definition of robbery, as it falls outside the temporal requirement.
However, courts have recognized that theft can be viewed as a continuing act rather than a single instantaneous moment. This principle allows for some flexibility in determining when the theft ends.
Key Case: R v Hale (1979)
Facts: Two defendants forced their way into a house. While one defendant tied up the victim, the other went upstairs and took property.
Legal Principle: The Court of Appeal held that the appropriation involved in theft should be viewed as a continuing act. It would be artificial and impractical to try to establish the precise moment when theft is completed. The force used to tie up the victim could therefore be considered as occurring "at the time of" the theft, even though the actual taking of property happened separately.
Significance: This case established that appropriation is not a precise moment in time but rather a continuing process. This allows courts to take a realistic approach when the force and the taking of property are closely connected in time.
Key Case: R v Lockley (1995)
Facts: The defendant was challenged by a shopkeeper as he was leaving a shop after stealing cans of beer. Lockley pushed the shopkeeper and ran away.
Legal Principle: Following Hale, the court held that theft was a continuing act. Even though the force (pushing the shopkeeper) occurred as the defendant was leaving, it could still be considered as occurring "at the time of" the theft.
Significance: This case extends the continuing act principle to situations where force is used during an escape. The appropriation continues until the defendant has finally left with the property, meaning force used during the getaway can still constitute robbery.
Component 3: In order to do so (steal)
There must be a direct link between the use of force and the theft. The force must be applied for the purpose of stealing—that is, to enable the theft to occur or to complete it.
This requirement means that force used for an entirely different purpose (such as during an unrelated argument) would not satisfy this element, even if a theft happens to occur at the same time. The prosecution must establish that the force was specifically intended to facilitate the theft.
Component 4: Uses force on any person or puts or seeks to put any person in fear of being then and there subjected to force
The defendant must either:
- Actually use force on another person, or
- Threaten to use force by putting someone in fear, or
- Attempt to threaten force by seeking to put someone in fear
The key question that often arises is: what constitutes "force"? The courts have taken a practical approach to this issue.
Key Case: R v Dawson and James (1976)
Facts: One defendant pushed the victim so that he lost balance, allowing the second defendant to take his wallet.
Legal Principle: The Court of Appeal upheld the conviction, stating that "force" is an ordinary English word that should be left to the jury to determine. Even a push that causes loss of balance can constitute force for the purposes of robbery.
Significance: This case establishes that force does not require any particular degree of violence. What matters is whether a reasonable jury would consider the defendant's actions to constitute force.
Key Case: R v Clouden (1987)
Facts: The defendant snatched a handbag from the victim's hands. The defence argued that force was applied to the bag, not to the person.
Legal Principle: The court held that even though the force was relatively slight, it was properly left to the jury to decide whether it amounted to force on a person. The jury was entitled to conclude that wrenching a bag from someone's grasp involved force on the person holding it.
Significance: This case confirms that force can be indirect—it does not require direct physical contact with the victim's body. Tugging an item from someone's grasp can constitute force on that person.
Key Case: RP v DPP (2012)
Facts: The defendant snatched a cigarette from the victim's hand.
Legal Principle: The Queen's Bench Division held that there was no robbery because there was no direct physical contact between the defendant and the victim. The situation was analogous to pickpocketing, where property is taken without any force being applied to the person.
Significance: This case sets a limit on how far the concept of "force" can be stretched. Merely taking an item from someone's hand, without making physical contact with the person, may not constitute force. This represents a narrower interpretation than in Clouden, suggesting that some minimal physical contact with the person may be required.
Mens rea of robbery
The mens rea of robbery has two components, both of which must be present.
Mens rea of theft
The defendant must have the complete mens rea for theft:
1. Dishonesty: The defendant must be dishonest according to the test established in Barton and Booth (2020). This involves a two-stage test:
- First, was the defendant's conduct dishonest by the standards of ordinary reasonable people?
- Second, did the defendant realize that their conduct was dishonest by those standards?
2. Intention to permanently deprive: The defendant must intend to permanently deprive the owner of the property, as required by section 6 of the Theft Act 1968.
Without both elements of the theft mens rea, there can be no robbery, as demonstrated in R v Robinson.
Intention to use force to steal
Additionally, the defendant must have an intention to use force (or threaten force) in order to steal. This links back to the actus reus requirement that force must be used "in order to" steal.
This means the defendant must intend both:
- To steal the property, and
- To use force as a means of accomplishing that theft
If force is used for a different purpose, or if the defendant does not intend to use force to facilitate the theft, this element is not satisfied.
Evaluation of the robbery offence
The definition of robbery under section 8 is comprehensive and attempts to cover all possible scenarios in which force is used in connection with theft. Like the definition of theft under section 1(1), it operates as a "catch-all" provision designed to encompass a wide range of conduct.
Complexity of the Definition
This comprehensive approach has drawbacks. The definition is lengthy, complex, and can be difficult to apply in practice. For students and legal practitioners alike, the multiple components and the need to satisfy both the full theft offence and the additional force element make robbery more complicated than might be expected for what is, in ordinary understanding, a relatively straightforward crime.
The complexity is particularly evident when considering:
- The precise timing of when force must be applied
- What degree of force is required
- Whether force on property held by a person constitutes force on the person
- When exactly a continuing act of theft ends
Despite these complexities, the courts have generally taken a pragmatic approach, particularly regarding the "continuing act" principle and the ordinary meaning of "force," which helps to ensure that the law can be applied fairly to real-world situations.
Exam guidance
Assessment: This content will be assessed in Paper 1 (Criminal Law).
Question types: In examinations, you may encounter:
- Multiple-choice questions testing knowledge of the basic elements of robbery
- Short-answer questions requiring explanation and analysis of the definition of robbery or specific components
- Long-answer questions requiring detailed analysis of the offence in part or in whole
- Scenario questions requiring application of the law to a factual situation to assess criminal liability
Scenario Question Technique: ILAC Structure
When answering scenario questions on robbery, use the ILAC structure:
- Issues: Identify what is happening in the scenario—is force being used? Is property being taken?
- Law: Define the relevant legal principles, starting with the section 8 definition
- Apply: Apply each component of the definition systematically to the facts
- Conclude: Determine whether the defendant has committed robbery
Common Mistakes to Avoid
Because the section 8 definition is lengthy, students often omit parts of it or apply the components incorrectly. Make sure you work through each element systematically:
- (1) steals
- (2) immediately before or at the time of doing so
- (3) in order to do so
- (4) uses force or puts/seeks to put any person in fear of force
Remember!
Key Points to Remember
Core Principles:
- Robbery requires a completed theft plus force (or threat of force) used immediately before or during the theft for the purpose of stealing
- No theft means no robbery—the R v Robinson case demonstrates that lack of dishonesty defeats a robbery charge
- Force is an ordinary word for the jury to decide, and can include relatively minor force such as pushing (R v Dawson and James)
- Theft is a continuing act, not a single moment—force used during the course of the theft (including during escape) can constitute robbery (R v Hale and R v Lockley)
- The mens rea requires both the mens rea of theft (dishonesty under Barton and Booth and intention to permanently deprive) plus intention to use force to steal
Key Cases to Remember:
- R v Robinson (1977) – no dishonesty means no theft and therefore no robbery
- R v Dawson and James (1976) – force is an ordinary word; even a push can be force
- R v Clouden (1987) – force on property held by victim can be force on the person
- RP v DPP (2012) – limits on force—taking without physical contact may not be enough
- R v Hale (1979) – theft as a continuing act; force during the course of theft satisfies timing requirement
- R v Lockley (1995) – continuing act applies to force during escape
Statutory Provision: Section 8 Theft Act 1968—learn this definition word for word and practice breaking it down into its component parts.