cases for robbery

CORCORAN v ANDERTON — What happened?

The defendants attacked a woman and tugged at her bag. She let go of the bag and it fell to the ground. The defendants ran away without taking the bag.

CORCORAN v ANDERTON — What was the legal issue?

Whether the theft had been completed when the force was used and therefore whether the defendants could be guilty of robbery.

CORCORAN v ANDERTON — What was the outcome?

The theft was complete, so the defendants were guilty of robbery even though they did not get away with the bag.

CORCORAN v ANDERTON — What principle does it establish?

Once the elements of theft are completed alongside the relevant force, the offence can amount to robbery.

CORCORAN v ANDERTON — Which part of robbery does it support?

The requirement for a completed theft and the relationship between the theft and force.

DAWSON AND JAMES — What happened?

One defendant nudged or pushed the victim, causing him to lose his balance, while the other defendant took his wallet.

DAWSON AND JAMES — What was the legal issue?

Whether the nudging or pushing was enough to amount to 'force' for robbery.

DAWSON AND JAMES — What was the outcome?

The convictions for robbery were upheld.

DAWSON AND JAMES — What principle does it establish?

'Force' has its ordinary meaning and it is for the jury to decide whether the defendant's actions amounted to force. Even relatively slight force can be sufficient.

DAWSON AND JAMES — Which part of robbery does it support?

The requirement that D uses force or threatened force.

HALE — What happened?

The defendants entered a woman's house and stole jewellery. Force was used against the woman during the incident, including restraining her.

HALE — What was the legal issue?

Whether the force was used at the time of the theft or too late, after the theft had finished.

HALE — What was the outcome?

The theft was treated as a continuing act, so the force used while the theft was still continuing could satisfy the timing requirement for robbery.

HALE — What principle does it establish?

Appropriation can be a continuing act, meaning force used while the theft is still ongoing can be 'at the time' of the theft.

HALE — Which part of robbery does it support?

The timing requirement — force must be immediately before or at the time of the theft.

DONAGHY — What happened?

D got into a taxi but did not want to pay the fare. He threatened the taxi driver and took money from the taxi.

DONAGHY — What was the legal issue?

Whether the force or threat was used in order to steal.

DONAGHY — What principle does it establish?

The force or threat must be used for the purpose of stealing. The purpose behind the force is important.

DONAGHY — Which part of robbery does it support?

The requirement that the force or threat is used in order to steal.

B AND R v DPP — What happened?

A schoolboy was surrounded by a group of other boys who demanded his phone and money. He was pushed and his arms were held while he was searched.

B AND R v DPP — What did the victim say about being frightened?

The victim said he did not feel particularly threatened or frightened.

B AND R v DPP — What was the outcome?

The convictions for robbery were upheld.

B AND R v DPP — What principle does it establish?

The victim does not have to actually feel frightened. D only needs to seek to put the person in fear of being then and there subjected to force.

B AND R v DPP — What else did the case demonstrate?

An implied threat of force can be sufficient, and the amount of physical force used can be limited.

B AND R v DPP — Which part of robbery does it support?

The requirement of putting or seeking to put a person in fear of immediate force.