Robbery: The Use of Force and s. 8 of the Theft Act 1968
| DOI | 10.1350/jcla.2012.76.4.777 |
| Published date | 01 August 2012 |
| Date | 01 August 2012 |
| Subject Matter | Divisional Court |
Divisional Court
Robbery: The Use of Force and s. 8 of the Theft Act 1968
P v Director of Public Prosecutions [2012] All ER (D) 197 (May)
Keywords Robbery; Theft Act 1968, s. 8; Use of force in order to steal;
Fact and degree for jury evaluation
An interesting issue arose for consideration in this decision regarding the
definitional elements of the offence of robbery within the purview of s. 8
of the Theft Act 1968. The victim (G) asserted that she had been walking
along a road when she became aware of three young people who
requested that she provide them with a cigarette. The victim had a
genuine belief that the appellant (P) wanted a cigarette, but had replied
that she did not have a spare one. It was contended that, although no
direct violence had occurred at the relevant moment, nonetheless P had
snatched a cigarette from her hand without permission, and passed it to
the others. On behalf of the prosecution it was consequently asserted
that the snatching of the cigarette satisfied the conduct elsewhere of
robbery, using force on a victim in order to steal, even thought no ‘direct
contact’ was apparent between the complainant’s hand and the appel-
lant’s. On these facts a conviction for robbery had been established at
first instance: the magistrates determined that P had snatched a cigarette
from G’s hand; the snatch amounted to the use of force by P; the force
was used to steal the cigarette; and there was a pre-arranged plan to rob
G. At issue before the Divisional Court was whether the magistrates had
been correct to decline a submission of no case to answer in respect of
the allegation of robbery on the basis that the act of snatching the
cigarette from G’s hand, in the circumstances described, was sufficient to
constitute ‘force’ for the purpose of s. 8 of the Theft Act 1968. In essence,
was direct physical contact a prerequisite for the external elements of
this crime? If a negative postulation was adduced to this question, then
the offence ought to be properly categorised as simple theft.
H
ELD
,
ALLOWING THE APPEAL
, for the purposes of the Theft Act 1968,
an offence of robbery was not committed when an offender had simply
snatched a cigarette from the complainant’s hand, as the snatching
without physical contact was not sufficient to constitute the use of force
for the purposes of s. 8. In general, borderline questions such as what
amounted to the use of force where the force used was minimal was a
matter for the first instance court and not for the appeal court. The
magistrates, however, had not factually determined that P had used
force on G in order to steal. In contradistinction, the ruling was that the
cigarette was snatched without necessarily any contact with the com-
plainant, and that embodied the use of force simply to steal outwith the
constituents of robbery. This analysis meant that force was not used on
G individually, unless the mere removal of the cigarette from her fingers
amounted to the use of force. By parity of reasoning, a similarity existed
here to the conduct engaged in pickpocketing where there was no direct
282 The Journal of Criminal Law (2012) 76 JCL 282–292
doi:10.1350/jcla.2012.76.4.777
To continue reading
Request your trial