Robbery (OCR A-Level Law): Revision Notes
Robbery
Definition
Robbery is a serious property offence that combines theft with the use or threat of force. Under s 8 of the Theft Act 1968, robbery is committed when a person steals and, immediately before or at the time of doing so, and in order to do so, uses force on any person or puts or seeks to put any person in fear of being subjected to force.
This definition establishes that robbery is essentially theft with an added element of force or threat of force. The offence cannot exist without first establishing that a theft has occurred under ss 1–6 of the Theft Act 1968.
This means all elements of theft (appropriation, property belonging to another, dishonesty, and intention to permanently deprive) must be present before robbery can be considered.
Actus reus of robbery
The actus reus of robbery consists of four key components that must all be satisfied for the offence to be complete. Each element builds upon the last to create the full picture of the criminal conduct required.
Steals
A complete theft under ss 1–6 of the Theft Act 1968 must be committed. This is the foundational element of robbery. If there is no theft, there cannot be a robbery. This means the defendant must have appropriated property belonging to another with the necessary mens rea (dishonesty and intention to permanently deprive).
Case Example: Corcoran v Anderton (1980)
The defendant grabbed the victim's handbag, which was instantly dropped, and the defendant ran off empty-handed.
Result: Despite taking nothing away with him, the defendant was convicted of robbery because the theft under s 1(1) was completed the moment he grabbed the handbag. The appropriation occurred when he assumed the rights of the owner, regardless of whether he successfully kept the property.
Case Example: R v Robinson (1977)
The defendant was owed £7 by the victim's wife. He approached the victim with a knife and argued with him. During the confrontation, the victim dropped a £5 note which the defendant picked up and kept.
Result: The court held that the defendant had a genuine belief he had a right in law to the £5. Even though he was not entitled to use a knife to recover the debt, he would not be dishonest under s 2(1)(a) of the Theft Act 1968, so there was no theft and therefore no robbery.
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 immediately before or at the time of the theft itself. Force used after the theft is complete does not satisfy this element and cannot amount to robbery, as it falls outside the statutory definition.
Courts have adopted a flexible interpretation through the concept of the continuing act. This recognises that appropriation is not an instantaneous event but can extend over a period of time.
Landmark Case: R v Hale (1979)
Two defendants forced their way into a house. One defendant tied up the victim while the other took items from upstairs. Although these actions happened at different times, the court held that theft should be viewed as a continuing act rather than a precise moment in time.
Result: The force used to tie up the victim was considered to be at the time of the theft, even though it was separate from the actual taking of items.
The principle from Hale was confirmed in R v Lockley (1995). The defendant was challenged by a shopkeeper after taking cans of beer. He pushed the shopkeeper and ran off. The defendant appealed, arguing that the theft was complete when he used force, so it could not be robbery. The Court of Appeal followed Hale and upheld the conviction, treating the theft as a continuing act. This means that force used while the defendant is still on the premises or while the appropriation is ongoing can satisfy the timing requirement.
And in order to do so (steal)
The use or threat of force must be for the purpose of stealing. There must be a causal connection between the force and the theft. If force is used for a completely different reason, or if the decision to steal comes after force has been used, this element may not be satisfied. The force must be instrumental in enabling or facilitating the theft.
Uses force on any person or puts or seeks to put any person in fear
The defendant must either apply actual force to any person or threaten to apply force. The threat must be of immediate force (then and there subjected to force). This distinguishes robbery from blackmail, which can involve threats of future harm.
The courts have taken a broad approach to what constitutes force. Even relatively minor physical contact can amount to force for the purposes of robbery.
Case Example: R v Dawson and James (1976)
One defendant pushed the victim so that he lost balance, allowing the second defendant to take his wallet.
Result: The Court of Appeal upheld the conviction, stating that force is an ordinary word to be decided by the jury. This suggests that even relatively minor physical contact can amount to force.
Case Example: R v Clouden (1987)
The defendant snatched a handbag from the victim's hands. It was argued that force was not applied to a person, but only to the bag.
Result: The court held that even though the force was only slight, the judge was correct to allow the jury to decide whether it amounted to force on a person. The act of wrenching the bag away while the victim was holding it constituted force applied to the victim.
However, there are limits to what constitutes force on a person.
Limitation: RP v DPP (2012)
The defendant snatched a cigarette from the victim's hand. The Queen's Bench Division stated that, like a pickpocket, there was no direct physical contact between the defendant and the victim. This case suggests that merely taking something from someone's hand without any physical contact with their person may not constitute force for the purposes of robbery.
Mens rea of robbery
The mens rea of robbery has three components, all of which must be present for the offence to be complete.
Mens rea of theft
First, the defendant must have the full mens rea required for theft. This consists of two elements:
Dishonesty: Following the Supreme Court decision in Ivey v Genting Casinos (2017) and its adoption by the Court of Appeal in Barton and Booth (2020), the test for dishonesty in criminal law is now the civil test.
The Two-Stage Test for Dishonesty:
- The jury must first determine what the defendant's actual knowledge or belief was as to the facts
- The jury must then decide whether the defendant's conduct was dishonest by the standards of ordinary decent people
This is an objective assessment based on the facts as the defendant believed them to be.
Intention to permanently deprive: The defendant must intend to permanently deprive the owner of the property, as defined in s 6 of the Theft Act 1968. This means the defendant intends to treat the property as their own to dispose of regardless of the other's rights, or intends to deprive the owner of the property's goodness, virtue and practical value.
Intention to use force to steal
In addition to the mens rea of theft, there must be an intention to use force in order to steal. This links the force to the purpose of committing the theft. If force is used accidentally or for a different purpose, and theft happens coincidentally, this element would not be satisfied.
Exam guidance
When answering questions on robbery, it is essential to work through the definition systematically. The definition in s 8 is lengthy and contains multiple elements that must all be satisfied, so it is easy to omit parts or apply them incorrectly.
Breaking down the definition
Learn to break down the s 8 definition into its constituent parts:
- Steals
- Immediately before or at the time of doing so
- In order to do so
- Uses force on any person or puts or seeks to put any person in fear of being then and there subjected to force
This structured approach ensures you address each element in turn and do not miss any components.
ILAC approach for problem questions
For scenario-based questions, use the ILAC method:
Issues: Identify what has happened in the scenario. What actions has the defendant taken? Has property been taken? Has force been used?
Law: Explain the relevant legal principles. State the definition from s 8 and break it down into components. Identify which cases are relevant to the issues in the scenario.
Apply: Apply the legal principles and case law to the specific facts of the scenario. Make comparisons with decided cases and explain why the facts are similar or different.
Conclude: Decide whether the defendant is, or is not, guilty of robbery. Explain your reasoning clearly, ensuring you have addressed all elements of the offence.
Common pitfalls
Common Mistakes to Avoid:
Forgetting theft must be complete: Remember that without theft, there can be no robbery. Always check that all elements of theft are satisfied before considering whether robbery has occurred.
Timing of force: Be careful with the timing element. Force used well after the theft is complete will not satisfy the definition. However, remember the continuing act principle from Hale and Lockley, which can extend the period during which force is considered to be at the time of theft.
Force on property vs force on person: Although Clouden suggests that snatching property from someone can constitute force on a person, be aware that merely removing property without any physical contact may not be sufficient (see RP v DPP).
Purpose of force: Always consider whether the force was used in order to steal. There must be a connection between the force and the theft.
Remember!
Key Points to Remember:
-
Robbery = Theft + Force/Threat of Force: Robbery requires all elements of theft under ss 1–6 Theft Act 1968, plus the use or threat of force on a person.
-
No theft, no robbery: If any element of theft is missing (for example, if the defendant is not dishonest under the Ivey/Barton and Booth test), then robbery cannot be established.
-
Continuing act principle: Following R v Hale (1979) and R v Lockley (1995), appropriation is viewed as a continuing act rather than a precise moment. Force used while the theft is ongoing can satisfy the timing requirement.
-
Force is broadly interpreted: Even minimal force can suffice (R v Dawson and James, R v Clouden), but there must be some physical contact with the person, not just with their property (RP v DPP).
-
Complete mens rea required: The defendant must have dishonesty and intention to permanently deprive (the mens rea of theft) plus the intention to use force to steal.