Robbery

Front 1

S.8 Robbery

Back 1

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

Front 2

Ambit of Robbery

Back 2

->Crime against property and person
Covers broad spectrum of cases:
->armed bank robbery to
->forcible handbag or mobile phone snatching
->Can involve threat of force to V or another person

Front 3

Actus Reus

Back 3

Steals (all elements of theft)

AND
Uses force (or puts V in fear of force)

Front 4

Mens Rea

Back 4

Intent to steal (dishonesty and intention permanently to deprive)

Intent to use force (or seeks to put V in fear of force)

Front 5

Timing of use of force

Back 5

immediately before OR
at the time of stealing
appropriation can be continuing act (Hale (1978) Lockley [1995] held Gomez not affected Hale)

Front 6

Timing of use of force

cont.

Back 6

AND in order to steal
(distinguish from force enabling theft or where threats separate from theft)
Not robbery if D still ‘on the job’ or force used purely to escape (NB theft & assault)

Front 7

Degree & Intensity of Force

Back 7

Force must be used on the person (or another)
(e.g. hand over mouth or jostling, but snatching not amount to force where pickpocketing or cigarette taken from fingers and no resistance or contact made) (RP v DPP [2012]; Clouden [1987]

Front 8

Degree & Intensity of Force

Back 8

Can amount to ‘tugging’ (D does not have to be successful in taking bag) (Corcoran v Anderson (1980)
Doesn’t have to be physical - express or implied threat can amount to force
Must be ‘then and there’ not some time in future

Front 9

Mens Rea

Back 9

Dishonesty element not made out if believe right to property (even if reinforce demand with knife) (Robinson [1977] Crim LR 173)
Force must be applied ‘in order to steal’ (intentionally or recklessly?)

Front 10

Mens Rea

Back 10

‘Seeks to put any person in fear of being subjected to force’
D must intend to make V afraid even if he/she is not actually afraid (e.g. can’t hear threat or doesn’t understand)

Front 11

s21 Blackmail

Back 11

A person is guilty of blackmail if:
->with a view to gain for himself or another or with intent to cause loss to another
->he makes any unwarranted demands
with menaces

Front 12

Elements of Blackmail
Actus Reus

Back 12

demand
with menaces
gain (for himself or another)
loss (to another)

Front 13

Mens Rea

Back 13

->Intention to make demand with menaces
->view to gain or intent to cause loss
->No belief reasonable grounds or that menaces appropriate

Front 14

‘Demand’

Back 14

Express words (e.g. in person, by email, fax, letter or phone) or impliedly (e.g. overhearing conversation) if ‘ordinary reasonable man’ realise demand being made (Collister and Warhurst (1955) 39 Cr App R 100) whether made politely or not

Front 15

'Demand'

Back 15

Made when and where sent/posted (as long as in jurisdiction) and continues until read (Treacy V DPP [1971]
Complete once made even if never delivered or communicated

Front 16

‘Menaces’

Back 16

Violence, harm, threats (liberally construed)
- anything unpleasant or detrimental (Thorne v. Motor Trade Association [1937] AC 797; Laurence and Pomroy (1971) 57 Cr App R 64)
Not trivial threat (e.g. give immunity from Uni Rag) (Harry [1974]

Front 17

‘Menaces’

Back 17

Has to be given objective meaning: [whether] the mind of the ordinary person of normal stability and courage might be influenced or made apprehensive so as to accede unwillingly to the demand (Clear [1968]

Front 18

Chambers v. DPP [2012]

Back 18

'Crap! Robin Hood Airport is closed. You’ve got a week and a bit to get your sh*t together otherwise I am blowing the airport sky high’

Front 19

How does your victim react?

Back 19

What if:
->the threats might have affected the mind of an ordinary person of normal stability but did not affect the person actually addressed?
->the threats would not have affected the mind of a person of normal stability?

Front 20

How does your victim react?

Back 20

Menaces towards a timorous (fearful) person are held to exist even if a reasonable person would not be frightened
as long as D knows V is timorous and will be frightened (Clear test clarified in Garwood)

Front 21

Garwood [1987]

Back 21

sufficient menace where it was the intention of the blackmailer that the victim be afraid even where as in (a) the threats did not in fact affect the victim but an ordinary person might have suffered AND

Front 22

Garwood [1987]

Back 22

where as in (b) the accused knew that the threats would have an affect on this particular victim and he or she was put in fear even though a person of normal stability might not have been afraid

Front 23

‘Gain or Loss’

Back 23

->Not necessarily gain or loss to blackmailer or victim (‘to another’)
->Can be permanent or temporary (i.e. allow to borrow)
Money or property (e.g. drugs, but not oral sex, honour position or liberty) (Bevans [1988]

Front 24

'Gain or Loss'

Back 24

->Includes gain by keeping what one has or loss by not getting what one might (s.34(2)a) Theft Act 1968)
->Demand for sex not blackmail, but demand for money in return for non-disclosure of sexual behaviour is financial gain

Front 25

unwarranted

Back 25

Unless made in belief that:

(a) reasonable grounds for making demand
(b) use of menaces proper way of reinforcing demand

Front 26

Permitted demands

Back 26

Belief is subjective and does not have to be reasonable as long as ….
believes reasonable grounds for making demand and menaces proper way of reinforcing it
‘proper’ broader than ‘lawful’ (Harvey (1981) but standards of society not D’s own
No defence D does not know what proposes is a crime or believes even if criminal ends justifies means