Court of Criminal Appeal
| Date | 01 July 1966 |
| Published date | 01 July 1966 |
| DOI | 10.1177/002201836603000305 |
| Subject Matter | Article |
COURT
OF
CRIMINAL
APPEAL 183
spend his leisure. All
that
legislation can do (and
that
it has
done) is to require
that
the
employer shall provide an oppor-
tunity for rest.
Court of
Criminal
Appeal
ROBBERY AT COMMON LAW
R. v. Pollock
ROBBERY at common law still exists in spite of the com-
prehensive statutory provisions in the Larceny Act, 1916,
defining special forms of robbery.
In
R. v. Pollock (1966, 2
All
E.R. 97) leave to appeal against convictions was given so
that
the
Court (Havers, Veale and MacKenna,
JJ.)
could
answer the following questions, which it did
:-(i)
Was there
ever a form of robbery at common law
that
involved no violence
or threat of violence,
but
only involved a putting in fear by an
accusation or threat of accusation of an unnatural crime?
If
yes,
what sort of unnatural crime was contemplated? (ii)
If
there is
such an offence at common law, was it affected by any of
the
Acts of Parliament dealing with this matter? (iii)
On
the
assumption
that
such an offence remained in existence at
common law, unaffected by statute, at what stage in the offence
must
the
prosecution show an
animus
furandi?
Reference was made to the eighteenth century cases which
extended
the
offence of robbery to include threats to accuse of
sodomy.
That
this extension was not to be further extended to
other threats was made clear in 1796 in R. v. Knezoland fEj
Wood (2 Leach 721).
The
extension of robbery to a threat to
accuse of sodomitical practices was there justified on
the
following grounds:
"The
bare idea of being thought addicted
to so odious and detestable a crime is of itself sufficient to
deprive
the
injured person of all
the
comforts and advantages
of society: apunishment more terrible, both in apprehension
and
reality,
than
even death itself.
The
law, therefore, con-
siders the fear of losing character by such an imputation as
To continue reading
Request your trial