3.2 - Robbery and attempt

Issue And Route

Robbery and attempt sit in different legal categories, so start by labelling the issue accurately.

Robbery is a completed property offence. It is not simply violence during a theft and it is not a free-standing violence offence.

Attempt is preliminary liability. It is used when the full offence has not been completed, but D has gone far enough towards committing it and has the required intention. In this lesson, the full offence may be robbery, but the attempt rule can also apply to other indictable offences in the Paper 1 criminal law route.

The AQA specification places both topics in Paper 1, Criminal law:

The route through a problem question depends on the facts. If property was actually stolen and force is linked to the stealing, robbery is the natural issue. If the plan failed before theft or before force was applied, attempt may be the issue. If D is still only preparing, there is no attempt.

A common AQA error is to write a robbery answer when the question is actually asking about the actus reus of attempted robbery. The command word and the facts control the answer.

Robbery Elements

Section 8 Theft Act 1968 defines robbery around four linked requirements. For AQA, the safest method is to prove theft first, then prove the force requirements.

The theft element imports all five theft requirements: appropriation, property, belonging to another, dishonesty and intention permanently to deprive. Do not simply write "there was a theft" unless the facts make it obvious. If dishonesty is disputed, or if D claims a belief in a legal right under s2(1)(a), analyse theft before robbery.

The force element can be satisfied by relatively slight force. AQA mark schemes identify R v Dawson and James as useful authority: force is an ordinary word for the jury, and it need not be severe. The key question is not "was the force dramatic?" but "was there force on a person, or fear of immediate force, connected with stealing?"

The force does not have to be against the owner of the property. Section 8 refers to force on "any person". That means a shop assistant, security guard or bystander may be the person forced or threatened, even if the property belongs to someone else.

The mens rea for robbery is the mens rea of theft plus the intention or purpose that the force or threat will assist the stealing. This is why AQA examiners warn against missing the "in order to steal" requirement. A push during an argument is not automatically robbery just because property is later taken.

Robbery Timing And Authority

The most difficult robbery issue is usually timing. Section 8 requires force immediately before or at the time of stealing. That does not always mean a single instant. Theft can be analysed as a continuing transaction where appropriation and retention of the property are still part of the same stealing event.

Use the authorities as legal tools:

These cases do not remove the need for a completed theft. AQA mark schemes repeatedly reward the point that robbery requires theft. If D honestly believes the property is D's, or if dishonesty otherwise fails, there is no completed robbery. There may still be another offence, and there may be an attempt if D intended to steal but failed to complete theft.

Timing also interacts with purpose. If D hits V for revenge and only afterwards notices and takes V's wallet, the earlier force may not have been used in order to steal. If D hits V to make taking easier, or to keep the stolen property during the same escape, robbery is much stronger.

Use calibrated conclusions:

Attempt Elements

Attempt is preliminary liability for an offence that has not been completed.

Attempt is normally limited to offences triable on indictment and requires an act, rather than an omission. The intended offence controls mens rea: attempted murder requires intention to kill, even though completed murder can rest on GBH intent. Some circumstance elements can retain their own fault rules; do not assume every element of every attempted offence always requires intention. Under s1(2)-(3), factual impossibility is not an automatic defence where the facts as D believed them would amount to the intended offence (Shivpuri). Merely being interrupted before completion is an ordinary attempt, not itself factual impossibility.

Attempt has two core elements:

The actus reus threshold is a matter of fact for the jury, but the cases give useful guidance. The law does not require D to perform the final act, yet it does require more than equipping, travelling, waiting or positioning if those facts still belong to preparation.