Criminal Law - Robbery (zoom in to see)
- Created by: heeyitscharlieex
- Created on: 22-05-18 23:05
View mindmap
- Robbery
- s8 Theft Act 1968...
- Completed theft.
- Use or threat of force immediately before or at the time of the theft.
- Intention or recklessness as to the force used.
- Force must be used IN ORDER to steal.
- Completed Theft...
- Robinson...
- D had a defence to 'dishonesty' under s2(1)(a) because he believed he had a genuine right in law to the money.
- Anderton v Corcoran...
- Held that even temporary appropriation is sufficient to be robbery.
- Robinson...
- Use or threat of force...
- Dawson & James...
- It is for the jury to decide whether 'force' was used.
- Force can be something really small such as jostling someone in order to distract them and take their wallet.
- Clouden...
- Wrenching a shopping basket from someone's hand is force sufficient for burglary.
- Not necessary that any force be applied - fear of force is sufficient.
- B and R v DPP...
- There does not need to be a fear of force for force to be sufficient.
- Force can be used or threatened against any person.
- Dawson & James...
- Immediately before or at the time of the theft...
- How immediately before does 'immediately before' have to be?
- Imagine a bank official has his home broken into and the D takes his bank keys and codes (this is the force) - if it takes an hour to drive to the bank to commit the theft, then the force did not occur immediately before the theft.
- When is the theft completed so the force can no longer be 'at the time of the theft'?
- Hale..
- Ds took jewellery from the victim's home and tied her up before leaving - they claimed the theft was completed by the time they used force, but it was held that the theft was ONGOING.
- Lockley...
- D was caught shoplifting cans of beer so used force on the shopkeeper in order to escape - the court followed Hale.
- Hale..
- How immediately before does 'immediately before' have to be?
- s8 Theft Act 1968...
Comments
No comments have yet been made