Since robbery is an aggravated theft, it is impossible to secure a conviction for robbery unless all the elements of theft can be satisfied. Cases like Robinson [1977] demonstrate this. In this case, a conviction of robbery could not be reached, as the defendant had honestly believed he was lawfully entitled to the money. He was not of course lawfully entitled to take violent steps to claim the money, so could therefore still be liable for several of the non-fatal offences against the person.
It is also necessary that the other elements of robbery are satisfied. The definition in s8, states that the defendant must be proven to have stolen ‘and immediately before or at the time of doing so and in order to do so, he uses force on any person or seeks to put them in fear of being then and there subjected to force’. These elements will not be satisfied, if the defendant uses force, and then goes on to steal. But in the interests of public liberty and safety, the courts have been prepared to take a more pragmatic approach to this definition. In the case of Hale [1978], the defendants argued that although they had forced their way into the victim’s house and stolen jewelry, they only had to restrain her and tie her up, as they left the house. They argued therefore that the theft was over when the theft took place. To avoid the defendants escaping a conviction, the courts decided that ‘the act of appropriation does not suddenly cease. It is a continuous act and it is a matter for the jury to decide whether or not the act of appropriation has finished’. While some may see this as a sensible move in order to secure the convictions of violent offenders, others may criticise the courts decision to depart from the directions given in the act, and therefore to bypass Parliament’s intentions.
When devising this section of the law, The Criminal Law Revision Committee made it clear that there had to be more than a mere snatching of property from an unresisting owner because it could be held to be robbery. Since then there have been numerous cases that have cast doubt over the severity of the force that must be used. In the case of Clouden [1987] the appellant’s conviction was upheld after it was decided that the defendant using both hands to wrench free the victim’s shopping bag was enough to constitute such force. In the case of Dawson [1976], Lawton L J attempted to provide clarity on the matter and stated that ‘force is a word in ordinary use. It is a word which juries understand’, and it was seen as fair that the juries decided such force was present when the defendant ‘jostled’ the victim. While many may welcome this wider approach, it is possible to take the counter arguments that not only are the courts departing from the original intentions of Parliament, but they are also causing perhaps unfair convictions for an offence that could carry a life sentence. With the influence of the controversial Crime (Sentences) Act, it would be appropriate for Parliament to take a stricter approach and therefore reserve the automatic life sentence for more violent offenders.
The case of Corcoran v Anderton [1980] resulted in the Divisional Court making any another important decision. The defendants had planned to attack the victim before taking her handbag, the robbery went as planned but one of the youths dropped the handbag and they ran off. The Divisional Court was asked to decide whether ‘the tugging at the handbag, accompanied by force, amounted to robbery, notwithstanding the fact that the co-accused did not have sole control of the bag at any time’. The Divisional Court came to the decision that the ‘appropriation’ necessary to satisfy the theft element was present, as appropriation was defined as an ‘assumption of rights of the true owner’, which made it clear that although the defendants had not taken the handbag, they had still assumed the rights of the owner and successfully appropriated it. The Divisional Court also had no doubts that the required force was present and therefore stated that ‘there cannot possibly be, save for the instance where a handbag is carried away from the scene… a clearer instance of robbery’ and the convictions were successful.
In conclusion the courts do seem to face a problem when attempting to maintain a fair approach towards robbery. While legislation like the Crime (Sentences) Act evidently shows that Parliament wish to take a very strict approach towards this offence, this also makes the job of the courts considerably more difficult. While few would disagree that the circumstances described in cases like Clouden and Dawson amount to robbery, such offences do not appear to be the most serious robbery cases. It therefore seems that the current state of the law on robbery restricts the courts, from providing fair punishments. It may also be helpful for some clarification on the word ‘force’; while allowing the jury to decide on the word does allow for a practical lay person’s definition of the word, it could also result in an inconsistent approach to the subject with too many decisions being reached on the personal preferences on the jury. The offence also relies on the confusing definitions of ‘dishonestly’ and ‘appropriation’
