Robbery And Blackmail

Front 1

Robbery

Back 1

s8 Theft Act 1968
- aggravated form of theft

Front 2

Actus Rea

Back 2

a) Theft
- necessary to prove the theft
b) Force or threats of force
- uses force
- puts a person in fear of being then and there subjected to force; or
- seeks to put a person in fear of being then and there subjected to force
c) on any person
d) Use or threat of force immediately before or at the time of stealing

Front 3

R v Robinson

Back 3

Robbery failed as Theft failed - he genuinely believed he had a right to take the money as part of what the person owed him

Front 4

Use of force

Back 4

Force is not defined in the act, and it is a matter for the jury to decide.

Force does not require violence: R v Dawson and James - getting intentionally nudged as someone else stole your wallet amounted to force

Force can be applied through property: R v Clouden, D grabbed the victim's shopping bag from her hand (force against the property must cause force against the person)

But force involves some contact: P & Others v DPP - removing a cigarette from the victim's hand was not direct contact and indirect contact was very minimal

Front 5

R v Dawson and James

Back 5

getting intentionally nudged as someone else stole your wallet amounted to force

Robbery does not require the force to be violent - LJ Lawton pointed out that Parliament changed the word from violence (Larceny Act 1916) to force

Front 6

R v Clouden

Back 6

D grabbed the victim's shopping bag from her hand (force against the property must cause force against the person)

Front 7

P & Others v DPP

Back 7

Force involves some contact: removing a cigarette from the victim's hand was not direct contact and indirect contact was very minimal

Front 8

Puts a person in fear

Back 8

A threat by the defendant which causes the person to think that force will be used against him or at the very least apprehend that fact, will be enough - they don't actually need to fear it (R v DPP)

Front 9

Seeks to put in fear

Back 9

The defendant can still be liable even if the person is not aware that he is being threatened with force, provided the defendant intends to make that person think he will be subjected, then and there, to violence. There will be no robbery if this is not the case, see R v Taylor

Front 10

R v Hale

Back 10

Difficulties can happen if the threat or use of force occurs after the theft has technically been committed, but this issue can be dealt with by treating the appropriation as a continuous act

The appellants contended that the theft was complete when the jewellery box was first seized and any force used after that point was not ‘immediately before or at the time of stealing’ nor was it used ‘in order to steal’.

The court dismissed the appeal and held that the appropriation should be regarded as a continuing act. It was for the jury to decide when the act of appropriation had come to an end. Thus, the jury were entitled to rely upon the act of tying up Mrs C after seizing the jewellery box, providing they were satisfied that the force was used in order to steal.

LJ Eveleigh: appropriation is a "continuous act"

Front 11

Mens Rea

Back 11

1) Mens rea for theft and
2) must also intent to use force in order to steal

Front 12

Actus Reus (Blackmail)

Back 12

1) Demand
2) Menaces

Front 13

R v Collister

Back 13

Defendants were police offers who implied that the victim would be arrested for an offence unless he met them the following evening and gave them money

"an actual demand is not necessary and that it is a fact for the consideration of the jury whether in all the circumstances of the case there was a demand" - Justice Hilbery

Front 14

Thorne v Motor Trade Association

Back 14

Defined "Menaces" for the purpose of blackmail

The word is to be "liberally construed" and not limited to threats of violence, but as including threats of any action detrimental or unpleasant to the person addressed

Front 15

R v Clear

Back 15

objective test for menaces: threats must be such that the mind of an ordinary person of normal stability and courage might be influenced or made apprehensive so as to accede unwillingly to the demand

This case "stiffened" the law (R v Harry - rag week poster case)

Front 16

R v Lawrence and Pomroy

Back 16

Blackmail, menace

Menace is an ordinary word, that does not need definition, but special direction should be given to the jury where special knowledge in special circumstances means that what would be a menace to an ordinary person is not a menace to the person it is addressed (or vice versa)

Front 17

R v Garwood

Back 17

Menaces (timidity)

"the existence of menaces is proved providing that the accused man was aware of the likely effect of his actions upon th evictim"

Front 18

Mens Rea (blackmail)

Back 18

Unwarranted

Front 19

R v Harvey

Back 19

No assistance is given to any defendant, even a fanatic or a deranged idealist, who knows or suspects that his threat, or the act threatened, is criminal but believes it to be justified by his end or his peculiar circumstances. The test is not what he regards as justified, but what he believes to be proper