#4624 - Robbery And Blackmail - GDL Criminal Law

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

2. 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

3. 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

2. 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

3. 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 evening and gave them money

• Demand may be made through an intermediary (R v Thumber)

• If a demand is made by letter it is made when it is posted (Treacy v DPP)

  • BUT if sent from abroad then when it was received

• Complete irrespective of the V’s compliance with the demand – wide interpretation of demand

• With Menaces

• Extends to threats to damage property and to make damaging allegations, truthful or not

• Thorne v Motor Trade Assoication – Lord Wright - Menace = ‘liberally construed’ - a threat of ‘any action detrimental to or unpleasant to the person addressed’ – wide definition

• There can be a menace even if the V isn’t intimidated – if it would have caused an ordinary man to succumb – R v Harry – organizers of student rag event wrote to shopkeepers offering them immunity from any ‘inconvenience’ from the activities – there was not sufficient evidence of malice

• But there will be no menace if the words/conduct wouldn’t have intimidated anyone (R v Clear)

  • But it will still be a menace where to D’s knowledge the particular victim will accede to demand – R v Clear

• R v Harvey - still blackmail if D threatened that something would happen to V even if D could not carry out the threat – here the D claimed to have X held hostage when he did not – then demanded money from V on threat of injuring V

• The threat doesn’t have to be towards the V, nor does the D have to be the one carrying it out

• R v Garwood: circumstances where there is a need for further direction to the jury

1. Where the threats would influence a person of normal stability but didn’t influenced V

2. Where the threats wouldn’t influence a person of normal stability – but D had knowledge they would affect V

MR:

• Unwarranted demand: Not every demand will be unwarranted – e.g. repayment of debts - threat of action is legal

S 21(1): unwarranted unless:

a)...