2.2.2 Robbery – Actus Reus

Statutory Definition

• s.8(1) Theft Act 1968:
  • “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 puts or seeks to put any person in fear of being then and there subjected to force.”
• Maximum sentence (s.8(2)): Life imprisonment (indictable only).
• Thus, robbery = aggravated form of theft: theft + force (or threat of force).

Elements of Actus Reus

To prove robbery, prosecution must establish:

1. A completed theft (actus reus + mens rea of theft).
2. Use or threat of force on a person.
3. Force must be immediately before or at the time of the theft.
4. Force must be in order to steal (causal link between force and theft).

Written and Compiled By Sir Hunain Zia, World Record Holder With 154 Total A Grades, 7 Distinctions and 11 World Records For Educate A Change AS Level Law Full Scale Course

1. Completed Theft

• Theft is the foundation: must satisfy all 5 elements under s.1 (appropriation, property, belonging to another, dishonesty, intention to permanently deprive).
• If theft is incomplete, robbery cannot occur.
• Case: R v Robinson [1977] Crim LR 173
  • D threatened V with knife to recover money he was owed.
  • Theft not completed (honest belief in legal right under s.2(1)(a)) → not robbery.
• Principle: No robbery without theft.

2. Use of Force or Threat of Force

Force on a Person

• Any degree of force sufficient; does not need to be violent.
• Case: R v Dawson & James [1976] 64 Cr App R 170
  • D jostled victim so wallet could be taken. CA: even minimal force counts.
• Case: R v Clouden [1987] Crim LR 56
  • D snatched shopping basket held by victim. Held: force applied to property being held amounts to force on person.
• Case: P v DPP [2012] EWHC 1657 (Admin)
  • D snatched cigarette from victim’s hand without touching. Held: not robbery — force must be more than mere removal if no contact.

Threat of Force

• Threat sufficient if victim put in fear of immediate force.
• Even if victim not actually frightened, if threat is made, robbery satisfied.
• Case: B & R v DPP [2007] EWHC 739 (Admin)
  • Schoolboy surrounded by youths, searched, and money taken. No need to prove victim was scared, only that threat of force was present.

Written and Compiled By Sir Hunain Zia, World Record Holder With 154 Total A Grades, 7 Distinctions and 11 World Records For Educate A Change AS Level Law Full Scale Course

3. Timing – “Immediately Before or At the Time”

• Force must be used immediately before or during the theft.
• Case: R v Hale [1978] 68 Cr App R 415
  • D and accomplice entered house, one stole jewellery, other tied up victim.
  • CA: Theft considered a continuing act, so tying up = robbery.
• Case: R v Lockley [1995] Crim LR 656
  • D used force on shopkeeper after stealing beer to escape. Held: theft is continuing while making off → robbery.
• Principle: Courts use “continuing act” principle (from Fagan v MPC) to ensure force close in time to theft counts.

4. Force Must Be “In Order to Steal”

• Must be link between theft and force — force used to carry out theft, not incidental.
• Case: R v Harris (1985) – force used for unrelated reason (e.g., personal attack not connected to theft) would not be robbery.
• If force unrelated to theft, conviction must be for separate assault + theft, not robbery.

Extent of Force

• Law does not define level of force needed; very broad.
• Even minimal contact suffices if it facilitates theft (Dawson & James).
• Debate whether this stretches robbery too far by criminalising minor acts.

Written and Compiled By Sir Hunain Zia, World Record Holder With 154 Total A Grades, 7 Distinctions and 11 World Records For Educate A Change AS Level Law Full Scale Course

Evaluation

• Strengths:
  • Wide definition ensures victims protected from both major and minor violence.
  • Continuing act doctrine prevents loopholes where theft and force occur close together.
  • Flexibility allows courts to adapt to varied factual situations.
• Weaknesses:
  • Force threshold very low — Dawson & James criticised for equating jostle with robbery.
  • Distinction between theft and robbery sometimes blurred (Clouden, P v DPP).
  • Broad scope risks disproportionate sentences: maximum for robbery = life, but actus reus can be very minor.

Reform Proposals

• Law Commission (2002): Suggested clearer statutory definition of force threshold in robbery.
• Proposals to distinguish “aggravated theft” (minor force) from “true robbery” (serious violence).
• No legislative change yet; courts continue case-by-case interpretation.

Exam Application Strategy

1. Start with statutory definition (s.8).
2. Step through each element of actus reus:
   • Completed theft (Robinson).
   • Force/threat of force (Dawson & James, Clouden, P v DPP, B & R).
   • Timing (Hale, Lockley).
   • In order to steal (link to theft).
3. Apply facts: Did force occur? Was it before/at time? Was it linked to theft?
4. Conclude whether actus reus of robbery proven.

Written and Compiled By Sir Hunain Zia, World Record Holder With 154 Total A Grades, 7 Distinctions and 11 World Records For Educate A Change AS Level Law Full Scale Course

Conclusion

• Actus reus of robbery = theft + force/threat + immediacy + causal link.
• Case law broadened definition: minimal force suffices, theft seen as continuing.
• Protects victims widely but criticised for blurring theft and robbery.
• Remains one of the most serious property offences due to combination of theft and violence