Robbery

 ( Crimes ) 

In R v Hale (1978) R v Hale (1978) 68 Cr App R 415, 1979 Crim LR 596, CA the application of force and the stealing took place in many different locations, and it was not possible to establish the timing; it was held that the appropriation necessary to prove theft was a continuing act, and the jury could correctly convict of robbery. This approach was followed in R v Lockley (1995)Crim LR 656 when the force was applied to a shopkeeper after property had been taken. It was argued that the theft should be regarded as complete by this time, and R v Gomez (1993),1993 AC 442, House of Lords should apply; the court disagreed, preferring to follow R v Hale.

The words "or immediately after" that appeared in section 23(1)(b) of the Larceny Act 1916 were deliberately omitted from section 8(1).The Criminal Law Revision Committee. Eighth Report. Theft and Related Offences. 1966. Cmnd 2977. Paragraph 65.

The book Archbold said that the facts in R v Harman, R v Harman (1620) 1 Hale 534 , (1620) 2 Rolle 154, (1620) 81 English Reports 721 which did not amount to robbery in 1620, would not amount to robbery now. Archbold Criminal Pleading, Evidence and Practice, 1999, para. 21-99 at p. 1772

It was held in R v Dawson and James (1978) R v Dawson and James (1978) 68 Cr App R 170, CA that "force" is an ordinary English word and its meaning should be left to the jury. This approach was confirmed in R v Clouden (1985) R v Clouden, unreported (C.A. No. 3897, 4 February 1985). For details see Griew, Edward. The Theft Acts 1968 and 1978. Fifth Edition. Sweet and Maxwell. 1986. Paragraphs 3-04 and 3-05 at page 80. and Corcoran v Anderton (1980), Corcoran v Anderton (1980) 71 Cr App R 104, 1980 Crim LR 385, DC both handbag-snatching cases. Stealing may involve a young child who is not aware that taking other persons' property is not in order.

Robbery occurs if an aggressor forcibly snatched a mobile phone or if they used a knife to make an implied threat of violence to the holder and then took the phone. The person being threatened does not need to be the owner of the property. It is not necessary that the victim was actually frightened, but the defendant must have put or sought to put the victim or some other person in fear of immediate force. R v Khan LTL (9 April 2001) and Archbold 2006 21-101.

The force or threat may be directed against a third party, for example a customer in a jeweller's shop. Smith v Desmond 1965 HL Theft accompanied by a threat to damage property does not constitute robbery, but it may disclose an offence of blackmail.

Dishonestly dealing with property stolen during a robbery constitutes an offence of handling.

Robbery generally results in a custodial sentence. Only a low-harm, low-culpability robbery with other mitigating factors would result in an alternative punishment, in the form of a high-level community order. The maximum legal punishment is imprisonment for life.Theft Act 1968, section 8(2) It is also subject to the mandatory sentencing regime under the Criminal Justice Act 2003. Current sentencing guidelines advise that the sentence should be no longer than 20 years, for a high-harm, high-culpability robbery with other aggravating factors.

The "starting point" sentences are:

• Low-harm, low-culpability street robbery: 1 year
• Medium-harm, medium-culpability street robbery: 4 years
• Medium-harm, medium-culpability professionally planned robbery: 5 years
• High-harm, high-culpability street robbery: 8 years
• High-harm, high-culpability professionally planned robbery: 16 years

The common law offence of robbery was abolished for all purposes not relating to offences committed before 1 January 1969Theft Act 1968, section 35(1) by section 32(1)(a) of the Theft Act 1968.

Section 23 of the Larceny Act 1916 read:

This section provided maximum penalties for a number of offences of robbery and aggravated robbery.

The following cases are relevant:

• R v Trusty and Howard (1783) 1 East PC 418
• R v Sharwin (1785) 1 East PC 421