S.8 Theft Act 1968 - Robbery
Definition and Requirements
Under Section 8 of the Theft Act 1968, a person is guilty of robbery if they:
1. Steal: They commit the act of theft as defined by the Theft Act 1968.
2. Use or Threaten Force: Immediately before or at the time of stealing, they use force or threaten to use force against another person.
Issues with Scope
The scope of robbery under Section 8 has been subject to critique for being both too narrow and too wide.
1. Too Narrow:
◦ Requirement of Force: The definition is limited to force or threats of force used specifically against a person. For example, if D threatens to use a hammer to damage V’s car unless V hands over the keys for D to steal the car, the threat of criminal damage does not constitute robbery.
◦ Application to Theft: The act of theft must be proven, and the use or threat of force must occur immediately before or during the act of theft.
2. Too Wide:
◦ Minimal Force: The amount of force required for a robbery does not need to be significant. This creates a fine line between theft and robbery. Even minor force, such as a nudge, can qualify as robbery if it is deemed to accompany the theft.
Comparative Approaches
• US Model Penal Code: In contrast, the US Model Penal Code stipulates that only threats of or actual use of "serious bodily injury" are sufficient to constitute robbery. This approach emphasises a higher threshold for what constitutes force or threats in robbery.
Case Law
1. Monaghan (2000):
◦ Jostling: The court found that jostling alone did not constitute robbery. In this case, only theft was charged because the force used was deemed insufficient.
2. Dawson (1976):
◦ Nudge: The defendant nudged the victim while taking their wallet. The court held that this constituted sufficient force to qualify as robbery, highlighting that even minor physical interaction can meet the threshold for force in robbery.
3. P v DPP (2012):
◦ Snatching Cigarette: The defendant snatched a cigarette from the victim’s mouth. The court held this did not amount to robbery. The decision was based on the de minimis principle, which considers the force used to be trivial.
◦ Potential for Robbery: If the defendant had used more aggressive behaviour, such as running at the victim, the force might have been sufficient to constitute robbery. This demonstrates the nuanced application of force in robbery cases.
4. R v Hale (1979):
◦ Continuous Act: The defendant covered the victim’s mouth to prevent her from screaming and subsequently tied her up after stealing items. The court ruled that the use of force was part of a continuous act that included the theft, thereby constituting robbery. The force used before or during the appropriation was deemed to meet the requirement for robbery.
The Law on Robbery: Ashworth
• Maximum Penalty: Robbery carries a maximum penalty of life imprisonment. The law does not differentiate between armed robbery, violent robbery, or less severe instances of robbery.
• Fair Labelling: This broad definition can lead to issues with fair labelling, as the same charge of robbery can apply to a wide range of behaviours, from minor pushes to serious violent attacks.
Summary
The law of robbery under Section 8 of the Theft Act 1968 encompasses a wide range of force and threats, and the distinction between theft and robbery can sometimes hinge on nuanced interpretations of what constitutes sufficient force or threat. The approach taken in this section reflects an effort to cover various scenarios but also raises issues regarding proportionality and fair labelling in the context of different types of force and theft.