This website uses cookies to ensure you get the best experience on our website. Learn more

GDL Law Notes GDL Criminal Law Notes

Robbery And Blackmail Notes

Updated Robbery And Blackmail Notes

GDL Criminal Law Notes

GDL Criminal Law

Approximately 551 pages

A collection of the best GDL notes the director of Oxbridge Notes (an Oxford law graduate) could find after combing through applications from top students and carefully evaluating each on accuracy, formatting, logical structure, spelling/grammar, conciseness and "wow-factor". In short these are what we believe to be the strongest set of GDL notes available in the UK this year. This collection of GDL notes is fully updated for recent exams, also making them the most up-to-date GDL study materials ...

The following is a more accessible plain text extract of the PDF sample above, taken from our GDL Criminal Law Notes. Due to the challenges of extracting text from PDFs, it will have odd formatting:

Robbery

Definition of theft – Theft Act 1968:

  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 outs or seeks to put any person in fear of being then and there subjected to force

  2. A person guilty of robbery, or an assault with intent to rob, shall on conviction on indictment be liable to imprisonment for life

AR

  • Theft

  • Must fulfil all the requirements of Theft as in S1(1) of the TA 1968 (Appropriation, Property, Belonging to Another)

  • Corcoran v Anderton: Two Co-Defendants attacked woman – they never got full control of the bag: CA upheld conviction – any assumption of rights of the owner (Morris) was theft – appropriation took place as soon as co-defendant tugged on the handbag

  • R v Robinson: Acquittal if the D honestly believed he had a legal right to the property

  • Force or threats of force

  1. Use of force

  • D uses force on someone

  • R v Dawson & James – force need not be substantial – only slight force is required

  • R v Hale: force of putting hand over V’s mouth was sufficient

  1. Puts a person in fear...

  • Equivalent of the AR of assault – apprehension of force rather than actual fear

  • R v DPP : Expectation of force is sufficient – no need for the V to fear it

  1. Seeks to put in fear…

  • The D will still be liable even if the person is not aware that he is being threatened with force, provided the D intends to make that person think he will be subjected – then and there, to violence

  • No robbery if the V does not feel threatened and D did not intend to make the V feel threatened (R v Taylor)

  • On any person: doesn’t have to be directed towards the person from whom the property is stolen

  • Use of threat of force immediately before or at the time of stealing

  • Problem if the threat or use of force occurs after the theft has technically been committed

  • R v Hale – treated appropriation as a continuous act – appropriation still continuing when they tied her up so they could take into account the force used to tie her up despite the fact they had already taken the jewellery box

  • If there is a delay between the threat and the appropriation – R v Donaghy & Marshall – timing not the crucial issue – jury must be satisfied that the threat is still operating on the victim and the defendants are aware of this – here it wasn’t clear so Ds were acquitted

MR

  • The defendant must act with:

  1. The mens rea of theft (Robinson)

    • “Intention to permanently deprive”

    • Dishonesty: S2(1) – Belief he has right in law, belief in consent; cannot be discovered by taking reasonable steps

    • Gauche (1) judged to be dishonest by the ordinary man (2) subjective test that the D thought it was dishonest

  2. Must also intend to use force in order to steal

Blackmail

Section 21 TA:

  1. 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 demand with menaces; and for this purpose a demand with menaces is unwarranted unless the person making it does so in the belief –

  1. That he has reasonable grounds for making the demand; and

  2. That the use of the menaces is a proper means of reinforcing the demand

  1. The nature of the act of omission demanded is immaterial, and it is also immaterial whether the menaces related to action to be taken by the person making the demand

  2. A person guilty of blackmail shall on conviction on indictment be liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding fourteen years

AR

  • Demand

  • Demand may be express or implied – R v Collister – the demand could be implied from conduct/circumstances – implied that he would be arrested unless he met them the following...

Buy the full version of these notes or essay plans and more in our GDL Criminal Law Notes.

More GDL Criminal Law Samples