Robbery And Armed Robbery Cases
What is Robbery?
Robbery is a violent theft—taking property from a person using force or threat of force.
The key difference from theft is the use or threat of violence.
Armed robbery is robbery where a weapon or imitation weapon is used to intimidate or cause harm.
Elements of Robbery
Taking of property (as in theft).
Property taken directly from a person or in their presence.
Use or threat of force or violence.
Intent to permanently deprive the owner of property.
Armed Robbery
Involves the use of a weapon (firearm, knife, etc.) or something resembling one.
Usually carries heavier penalties due to increased danger.
Landmark Cases on Robbery and Armed Robbery
1. R v. Robinson (1977) — UK
Facts:
Defendant took money from a man who owed him a debt. He used force during the taking.
Held:
Court ruled that force used must be in order to steal.
If the defendant honestly believed they had a right to the property, there is no robbery.
Impact:
Clarified intent and force link in robbery.
2. R v. Dawson and James (1976) — UK
Facts:
Defendants pushed a man to steal his wallet.
Ruling:
Court held that even minimal force is enough for robbery.
The force can be very slight if it causes fear or intimidation.
Significance:
Set the standard that any use of force suffices, no matter how small.
3. R v. Hale (1979) — UK
Facts:
Defendant stole jewelry but only applied force during the escape.
Judgment:
Court decided that force used immediately before or during theft counts.
“Continuing act” doctrine applies: theft begins before force is used if closely connected.
Key Point:
Force can occur at any time during the theft sequence.
4. R v. Clouden (1987) — UK
Facts:
Defendant wrenched a shopping bag from the victim’s hand.
Decision:
Court ruled this could amount to robbery since force was applied to the person.
Importance:
Expanded what counts as force to include force applied indirectly (through an object).
5. R v. Collins (1973) — UK
Facts:
Defendant climbed into woman’s bedroom, allegedly intending theft but claimed it was trespass.
Ruling:
Court explained the importance of intent and knowledge in burglary vs. robbery.
While not strictly robbery, case clarifies intent and entry concepts important in theft-related offences.
6. R v. Brown (1986) — UK
Facts:
Defendant held a gun during a robbery.
Held:
Use of weapon escalates robbery to armed robbery, carrying harsher sentences.
7. People v. Goetz (1986) — USA (New York)
Facts:
Defendant shot alleged muggers on the subway.
Ruling:
Examined reasonableness of fear and use of force in self-defense during a robbery.
Legal Principle:
Clarifies self-defense limits when resisting robbery.
Summary Table
| Case | Jurisdiction | Key Point | Legal Impact |
|---|---|---|---|
| R v. Robinson (1977) | UK | Force must be linked to theft | Clarified intent-force link |
| R v. Dawson & James (1976) | UK | Minimal force suffices | Low threshold for force |
| R v. Hale (1979) | UK | Force before/during theft counts | “Continuing act” doctrine |
| R v. Clouden (1987) | UK | Indirect force counts | Broadens force definition |
| R v. Collins (1973) | UK | Intent crucial | Differentiates burglary & robbery |
| R v. Brown (1986) | UK | Weapon use escalates charge | Armed robbery principles |
| People v. Goetz (1986) | USA | Self-defense vs robbery | Limits on use of force |
Key Takeaways on Robbery and Armed Robbery
Force or threat of force is essential for robbery.
The force can be very minor or indirect but must be used to facilitate theft.
Intent to steal must be present.
Use of a weapon or imitation weapon leads to armed robbery, increasing the seriousness and sentencing.
Courts often consider the timing of force (before or during the theft) as part of the act.
Self-defense in robbery cases is scrutinized carefully to balance rights.
RELATED Blog
0 comments