Your World of Legal Intelligence
 United Kingdom | +44 (0) 20 7284 8080

Robbery: Threat of Force

Document Cited authorities 3 Cited in Related
Vincent
AuthorEmily Finch
Date01 June 2008
Published date01 June 2008
DOI10.1350/jcla.2008.72.3.492
Subject MatterDivisional Court
JCL 72(3) dockie..Divisional Court .. Page187 Divisional Court
Robbery: Threat of Force
B and R v Director of Public Prosecutions [2007] EWHC 739 (Admin)
Keywords
Robbery; Theft Act 1968, s. 8; Brave victims; Implied threat
of force
The appellants were teenage boys who, acting as part of a larger group,
surrounded a 16-year-old boy and demanded that he hand over his
mobile phone and money. When he refused, B held the victim's arms
and went through his pockets whilst R stood in front of the victim when
this was taking place. B removed money from the victim's wallet and
took a watch and travel card from his pocket. The watch was found in
R’s pocket. The victim stated that he had not felt particularly threatened
or scared but that he had merely been a bit shocked.
The appellants were charged with robbery and at trial submitted that
there was no case to answer on the basis that the facts did not disclose
sufficient evidence of force or threat of force which could transform
what was essentially a distraction theft into robbery contrary to s. 8 of
the Theft Act 1968. The trial judge rejected this submission and held that
the surrounding of a lone individual by a group amounted to an implied
threat of force and that the searching of his pockets amounted to the
actual use of force.
The issue before the Divisional Court was whether, in the absence of
an explicit threat that force will be used, an implicit threat of force can
be found if the victim did not feel threatened.
HELD, ALLOWING THE APPEAL, s. 8 of the Theft Act 1968 requires that
the defendant seeks to put a person in fear of force in order to steal. It
does not require that the victim of robbery is actually placed in fear of
being subjected to force. As such, it is immaterial that the victim in this
case did not feel threatened by the appellants' behaviour.
COMMENTARY
This case highlights the difficulties of imposing liability for robbery in
cases where there is a low level of physical contact and where the threat
emanates from the general hostile...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT