criminal law question

A basic Theft definition is found in section 1 of the Theft Act 1968 but is further broken down in sections 2 - 6

Robbery Definition - 8(1) of the Theft act 1968

Reply 3

Original post by Enrii

hey guys,
could any one tell me when can you tell if its a robbery or when its just theft with assault?

so for a robbery... D has to have the actus reus of:
1)there has been an appropriation
2) this was of property
3) this property belonged to someone else
4) there was force or fear of force used to obtain this property

For a theft with an assault
1 2 and 3 are the same but
4) D committed an act that caused the victim to APPREHEND immediate unlawful force... so no ACTUAL force has to be used (eg..threats)

For the mens rea

For robbery
1) the act is dishonest
2) D had the intention to permanently deprive
3) intends to put any person in fear of force or to use force, in order to steal

For theft with assault
1 and 2 are the same
3) D had the intention to cause another to fear immediate unlawful force or being reckless as to doing so

Is that any clearer??

(edited 5 years ago)

Reply 4

Original post by Camryn0903

so for a robbery... D has to have the actus reus of:
1)there has been an appropriation
2) this was of property
3) this property belonged to someone else
4) there was force used to obtain this property

Force is not needed to commit burglary, read the statute I quoted above.

Reply 5

I never said it was... I said robbery... he asked the difference between robbery and theft with assault

Original post by james_law

Force is not needed to commit burglary, read the statute I quoted above.

Reply 6

Original post by Camryn0903

I never said it was... I said robbery... he asked the difference between robbery and theft with assault

Sorry please excuse my lack of concentration. I meant robbery, no force is needed for robbery, so you are still wrong.

Reply 7

Original post by james_law

Sorry please excuse my lack of concentration. I meant robbery, no force is needed for robbery, so you are still wrong.

what are you on about??? ... if there is no force used... its theft?!

Reply 8

P v DPP 2012 clearly states that you cannot have a robbery without force

And yes I agree that B and R v DPP 2007 states that fear of force is enough... but did I not state this?? If I didnt.. I genuinely though I did... hang on

Reply 9

You dont need force for robbery to occur, it can be either actual force or putting any person in fear of force being used. So holding a gun to the cashier's head would potentially constitute robbery.

Reply 10

But I said thatttt

Original post by james_law

You dont need force for robbery to occur, it can be either actual force or putting any person in fear of force being used. So holding a gun to the cashier's head would potentially constitute robbery.

Reply 11

I'm so confused now... is it because I said about assault not having any actual force... I was just explaining assault I wasnt saying that that wasnt also included in robbery.... ??

Original post by james_law

You dont need force for robbery to occur, it can be either actual force or putting any person in fear of force being used. So holding a gun to the cashier's head would potentially constitute robbery.

Reply 12

Please don't make me out to look like an idiot........... You have just edited your post to accommodate what I just pointed out

Also 3) of the MR of robbery is actually the AR.

Have a good day misguiding people.

Reply 13

Original post by james_law

Please don't make me out to look like an idiot........... You have just edited your post to accommodate what I just pointed out

Also 3) of the MR of robbery is actually the AR.

Have a good day misguiding people.

No I know I edited it... that's why I went and changed it here because I realised I hadn't put it but I thought I had... so stop accusing me of things... that's why i changed it... from then on i was saying i put that

Original post by Camryn0903

P v DPP 2012 clearly states that you cannot have a robbery without force

And yes I agree that B and R v DPP 2007 states that fear of force is enough... but did I not state this?? If I didnt.. I genuinely though I did... hang on

Reply 14

Also no it's not... I admit that I should have put intend but it's still required as the mens rea.. if they didnt intend to put this person in fear of being then they dont have the mens rea or robbery?!?

Original post by james_law

Please don't make me out to look like an idiot........... You have just edited your post to accommodate what I just pointed out

Also 3) of the MR of robbery is actually the AR.

Have a good day misguiding people.

Reply 15

Original post by Camryn0903

Also no it's not... I admit that I should have put intend but it's still required as the mens rea.. if they didnt intend to put this person in fear of being then they dont have the mens rea or robbery?!?

I can assure you that it is part of the AR sir.

Reply 16

Ma'am would be more accurate (why does everyone think I'm a man on this site?!)... and "seek to put any person in fear of force" is actus reus... but unless they also have the mens rea of actually intending to cause this fear of force or intending to use this force to steal... they cannot be guilty ...

Attachment not found

There... I added to steal on the end you happy now??

Reply 17

Original post by Camryn0903

Ma'am would be more accurate (why does everyone think I'm a man on this site?!)... and "seek to put any person in fear of force" is actus reus... but unless they also have the mens rea of actually intending to cause this fear of force or intending to use this force to steal... they cannot be guilty ...

Attachment not found

There... I added to steal on the end you happy now??

...

Reply 18