#3093 - Robbery, Blackmail And Burglary - GDL Criminal Law

Robbery

- s8(1) Theft Act 1968: a person is guilty of robbery if he steals and immediately before or at the doing so, and in order to so, he uses force on any person or puts or seeks to put any person in fear of being then and there subjected to force.

Actus Reus: theft + force or threats of force immediately before or at time of stealing.

- Theft AR: appropriation of property belonging to another (s1(1) TA 1968) – all elements needed.

• R v Robinson: d. brandished knife + demanded money owed by v. not guilty: s2(1)(a) defence.

• Corcoran v Anderton: 2 ds. tried to steal v’s handbag, grabbed but failed guilty: appropriation inc. touching.

- Force of threats of force: aggravating element – distinguishes robbery from theft.

• 1. use of force: not defined – q. of fact for jury (R v Dawson & James).

  • violence not required (R v Dawson & James: ds nudged v. + took wallet guilty).

  • can be applied through property (R v Clouden: d. grabbed v’s shopping bag from hand guilty).

• 2. OR: puts person in fear of being then + there subjected to force.

  • v. need only apprehend, not fear force (R v DPP).

  • maybe apprehension not needed (R v DPP: doubted whether needed, cf. earlier Grant v CPS).

• 3. OR: seeks to put person in fear of being then + there subjected to force (INTENTION sufficient).

  • d. must intend v. to be aware of threat to self (R v Taylor: not threat to 3^rd party who is unaware).

- On any person: need not be directed against person from whom property stolen (but target of threat must be aware).

- Immediately before or at time of stealing.

• can be after: appropriation continuing act (R v Hale: ds. took jewellery box then threatened owner guilty).

• threat must still be operating on v. + d. aware (R v Donaghy & Marshall: ds. forced taxi driver to make journey with threats, then stole money but did not repeat threats not guilty).

Mens Rea: MR for theft + intention to use force in order to steal.

- Theft MR: dishonesty + ITPD.

- Intention to use force in order to steal.

Blackmail

- s21 Theft Act 1968:

• (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.

  • demand with menaces unwarranted unless d. believes:

    • (a) that he has reasonable grounds for making the demand; and

    • (b) that the use of menaces is a proper means of reinforcing the demand.

• (2) the nature of the act or omission demanded is immaterial, and it is also immaterial whether the menaces relate to action to be taken by the person making the demand.

Actus Reus: demand with menaces.

- Demand.

• can be any form, inc. implied: matter of fact for jury to decide (R v Collister: ds. (policemen) implied would arrest v).

• act or omission (s21(2)).

• can be made through intermediary (s21(2)).

- Menaces.

• wide definition (Thorne v Motor Trade Assoc: rule that member not on Stop List if paid w/in 21 days not blackmail).

  • [Ld Wright]: not just violence; any threat of any action detrimental/unpleasant to v.; or warning.

  • [Ld Atkin]: can be threat to do something d. in entitled to do (e.g. communicate compromising fact).

• objective test: ordinary person of normal stability/courage affected (R v Clear: v. (lorry m’ger) not affected guilty).

  • no menace if ordinary person not affected (R v Harry: promise to protect from RAG shenanigans).

• exceptions: special direction to jury in limited circs.

  • v. has special knowledge negating apparent threat (R v Lawrence & Pomroy, [Cairns LJ]).

  • where v. unusually timid or brave (R v Garwood, [Ld Lane]):

    • 1. v. not affected but ordinary person would be sufficient menace.

    • 2. v. affected but ordinary person not sufficient menace IF d. aware + exploiting weakness.

Mens Rea: view to gain for d. or another or intent to cause loss for another + demands unwarranted.

- View to gain for d. or another or intent to cause loss to another.

• defs: gain = inc. keeping what one has; loss = not getting what one might get (s34(2)(a)(i)-(ii)).

• must be money or property (s34(2)(a)).

• can be temporary or permanent (s34(2)(a)).

- Unwarranted: s21(1)(a)-(b) TA.

• subjective test (R v Harvey; R v Lambert):

  • 1. absence of reasonable grounds for making demand (s21(1)(a)).

  • 2. absence in belief that...