H418/01 - Robbery

Robbery must include a theft

Section 8(1) of the Theft Act 1968 makes a person guilty of robbery if they steal and, immediately before or at the time of doing so, and in order to do so, use force on any person or put or seek to put any person in fear of being then and there subjected to force. Break this into a complete theft, the force or threat, its timing and its purpose.

“Steals” imports theft's five elements: dishonest appropriation of property belonging to another with intention permanently to deprive. A dramatic use of force does not supply a missing theft element. R v Mitchell (2008) concerned forcible removal of a car's owner followed by taking the car. The Court of Appeal emphasised the need to prove permanent-deprivation intention; violence could not convert mere unauthorised temporary use into robbery. The decision did not make violent car-taking lawful: other offences can still be committed.

Likewise, a genuine section 2 belief in a legal right to take particular property can prevent dishonesty and therefore defeat robbery, even though the force may constitute a separate offence. The belief must actually concern legal entitlement to deprive the person of the property, not simply a moral claim that “they deserve it”. All the statutory elements remain important even when the facts look plainly objectionable.

Completed robbery requires theft, but successful long-term escape is unnecessary. A defendant who takes a watch intending to keep it is not relieved of theft because the victim immediately recovers it. By contrast, no completed appropriation may mean no completed robbery, although attempted robbery or assault with intent to rob may be relevant. Section 8(2) expressly recognises assault with intent to rob; do not silently change an unsuccessful attempt into a completed offence.

Force on any person or an immediate threat

The statute offers alternatives: using force, putting a person in fear of immediate force, or seeking to put them in that fear. Actual injury is unnecessary. The victim need not actually be frightened for the “seeks to put” alternative, but the defendant's threatening purpose must be established. A threat understood solely as harm next year is different from a demand backed by force “then and there”.

Force is an ordinary word for the fact-finder to apply in context, not a fixed minimum injury scale. R v Dawson and James (1976) shows that even relatively slight force may suffice. R v Clouden (1987) involved wrenching a shopping basket from the victim's hand; force transmitted through property held by the person could be force on the person. The significance is that direct skin contact is unnecessary, but force on the person must still be found.

There is a boundary. In P v DPP (2012), snatching a cigarette from between the victim's fingers without direct contact did not on those facts establish force on the person. This does not mean that every bag snatch is robbery or that every contact-free taking cannot be robbery. Wrenching an object so that force is transmitted to its holder is different from removing a light object without force on them. Explain the relevant movement, resistance and effect.

“Any person” is broader than the owner of the property. An original example: a robber threatens a shop assistant with an immediate blow to make the cashier hand over the shop's money. The assistant need not own the cash. By contrast, kicking an unattended box merely to open it does not by itself establish force on a person, though the conduct may still involve theft or another offence.

The law therefore protects people as well as property, connecting robbery to assault and battery. Yet the robbery force element does not require proof of ABH or GBH, and the basic person offences have their own distinct elements. A legal argument should identify which definition it is using.