A more recent version of these Robbery Blackmail Burglary notes – written by Cambridge/Bpp/College Of Law students – is available here.
The following is a more accessble 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:
Criminal Law : Robbery, Blackmail & Burglary Robbery, s8 TA 1968
?????S8 TA: steals + immediately before/at time of, and in order to do so, uses force on any person/or puts or seeks to put any person in fear of being there & then subjected to force. AR---theft + force or threats of force on any person immediately before or at time of stealing (1) Full AR for theft.
? Belong to another
? R v Robinson: need all elements of theft, AR and MR. [[in this case, had s2(1)(a) defence, so no theft, so no robbery]].
? Corcoran v Anderton: only need s3(1) any appropriation, Morris any one right of owner---so touching handbag sufficient for appropriation (doesn't matter they ran off empty handed).
? R v Mitchell (2) Use of force or threats of force
? [[old law---required use of violence]].
? 3 ways to satisfy:: o (a) uses force: o Does not require violence; matter of fact for jury. o R v Dawson & James: 'force' not defined, q of fact for jury. o R v Dawson & James: violence not required, does not have to be 'substantial' force, can include nudging victim. o R v Hale: hand over someone's mouth = force. o Force can be applied through property: R v Clouden: wrenched shopping bag out of grasp---force to detach property can be force on the person. o P & Others v DPP: no force, re removing cigarette from victim's hand. Must be more than minimal contact. o OR (b) puts a person in fear of being there and then subjected to force [result option]: o A threat is enough. o Fear meaning apprehend (anticipates/expects) force, not fear (R v DPP). o Maybe apprehension not needed (R v DPP doubted whether needed, Grant v CPS said needed). o OR (c) seeks to put someone in fear of being there and then subject to force [doesn't need a result, conduct-based, no one need actually be put in fear, eg if they are deaf]. 1
o R v Taylor: re bank cashier, note demanded cashier hand over money otherwise D would hurt a customer; customer wasn't put in fear, unaware of threat; glass partition between customers and cashier. Quashed conviction---person must be put in fear for their own safety, not safety of others. Neither customer nor cashier feared being there and then subjected to force. o So D must intend V to be aware of threat to self (not threat to unaware 3rd party). NB: where you have a threat of future force, will not be robbery (not 'there and then' in fear of being subject to force)---
but could be a blackmail.
(3) On any person
??? ?Need not be the victim of theft [[but target of threat must be aware, Taylor]]. (4) immediately before or at the time of stealing
? ?? ? Issue (1)---where theft occurred before force was used---R v Hale, (Everleigh LJ): appropriation is continuing act, for jury to decide when it ends. Re in house of Mrs C; took her jewellery; then gagged her and tied her up; D argued theft was already complete when force was used; so force not used 'in order to steal' or 'immediately before/at time of'. HELD: (1) hand over mouth =
force; (2) alternatively, later force counted as theft was continuing act.
??? ?CA also said it is 'reasonable', perhaps likely, for jury to decide that Ds still appropriating the property, whilst they are still on the premises.
? ?? ? Issue (2), where threat significantly before actual theft:
??? ?R v Donaghy & Marshall: jury must be satisfied that, at time of theft, threat was still operating on mind of the victim; and D is aware of that. Re threatened taxi driver, when arrived stole from him, did not repeat earlier threat---not guilty. MR---theft + intention to use force to steal (1) MR for theft
?????R v Robinson: need all elements of theft (including MR). In that case, no robbery because had s2(1)(a) defence, believed the money was legally his as he was owed debt. (2) Intention to use force in order to steal
? So accidental force not enough for robbery.
? R v Hale continuing act theory might be useful---where D has started stealing before force is used. 2
[[NOTE: if steals, and uses force, but not in order to steal, could only be charged with theft (and maybe battery as well, subject to implied consent if in busy place etc).
NB, rather than structuring by AR & MR, could structure as four elements:
1. Steals (full AR and MR for theft)
2. (i) Uses force on any person or (ii) puts any person in fear of being then and there subjected to force or (iii) seeks to put any person in fear of being then and there subjected to force.
3. Immediately before or at time of doing so (stealing)
4. In order to do so (steal)
Blackmail, s21 AT 1968
??? ?S21 TA: 'with a view to gain for himself or another or with intention to cause loss to another, he makes an unwarranted demand with menaces' AR---Demand + Menaces (1) Making a Demand
??? ?To be given ordinary meaning.
??? ?No need for demand to be effective in securing compliance.
??? ?Can be express, OR:
??? ?Can be implied, from conduct/circumstances--R v Collister &
Warhurst (re implied demand, police officers to victim 'what have you got for us?')
??? ?[[look out for an implied demand, orally/by conduct or other means, might exist alongside a written demand]].
??? ?Treacy v DPP: where demand is made by post, written ?
demand is made moment it is posted. (2) With menaces
? R v Lawrence & Pomeroy: 'menace' = an ordinary English word, common sense, matter for jury doesn't normally need elaboration, can be express or implied.
? Wider than a threat/violence: Thorne v Motor Trade Association (MTA): menace = a threat of 'any action detrimental to or unpleasant' to the person addressed---not limited to threats of violence.
? But menaces suggests high degree of coercion: Harry: no menace if threat would not intimidate or influence anyone.
? R v Clear: an objective test whether amounts to menaces, menace = a threat of such a nature & extent 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.' o [[if the victim is of particularly strong courage/stability, D still guilty if an 'ordinary person' would have acceded unwillingly]]. 3
Buy the full version of these notes or essay plans and more in our GDL Criminal Law Notes.