Revise Robbery as defined in s8 Theft Act 1968 for Cambridge 9084 (2.2.2)

Robbery is an aggravated form of theft, defined in s8(1) of the Theft Act 1968. The Act states: '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.' This definition establishes that robbery is not a standalone offence; it is fundamentally a theft that is accompanied by violence or the threat of violence. Consequently, for a conviction of robbery, the prosecution must first prove that a complete theft has occurred, satisfying all the actus reus and mens rea elements under the Theft Act 1968. Without a proven theft, there can be no robbery.

The actus reus of robbery has two components: the actus reus of theft, and the additional elements from s8.

1. 'Force on any person' or 'threat of force': The amount of force required is a question of fact for the jury and can be minimal. In R v Dawson and James (1976), jostling a victim was sufficient. In R v Clouden (1987), wrenching a bag from a person's grasp was also deemed sufficient force. The force must be on a person, though this can be indirect. However, in P v DPP (2012), snatching a cigarette from a victim's hand without touching them was not force. The alternative is putting or seeking to put a person in fear of 'then and there' being subjected to force. The victim need not actually be scared, as long as the defendant intended to cause fear of immediate violence.

2. 'Immediately before or at the time of stealing': The timing of the force is critical. The courts have interpreted this broadly. In R v Hale (1979), defendants tied up a homeowner after taking her jewellery. The Court of Appeal held that appropriation can be a 'continuing act', so the force was used 'at the time of' the theft. This was confirmed in R v Lockley (1995), where force used on a shopkeeper to escape was part of the robbery.

3. 'In order to do so' (steal): The force must be used for the purpose of stealing. If force is used in a fight and the defendant then opportunistically takes the victim's wallet as an afterthought, this would be separate offences of assault and theft, not robbery.

The mens rea for robbery is twofold. First, the defendant must have the complete mens rea for theft: dishonesty (as per the test in Ivey v Genting Casinos) and an intention to permanently deprive the other of the property (s6). Second, the defendant must have the mens rea for the element of force. This means the defendant must intend to use force or threaten force for the specific purpose of carrying out the theft. An accidental use of force during a theft would not suffice. The defendant must be aware they are using force and intend for that force to enable the theft.