Clouden, R v (1987) CA

^[Robbery - use of force]
D wrenched a woman's shopping basket down and out of her grasp and ran off with it.

D argued that snatching a bag could not amount to force. 

Held: Whether force had been used or not is a matter to be left to the jury.  The jury were entitled to conclude that pulling a bag down amounted to force.   The old distinction between force on the actual person and force on property causing force on the person had gone.

Guilty

Corcoran v Anderton [1980] DC

^[Robbery - appropriation]
D struck V in the back, tugged at her handbag causing the woman to release it. The woman screamed and fell. Both D and his accomplice ran off empty-handed. The woman retrieved her handbag. At no time did D have sole control over the handbag.

Held: The tugging of the handbag of itself might not be a sufficient appropriation; the snatching of the handbag from the woman causing it to fall from her grasp to the ground amounted to an appropriation.

Guilty

Dawson and James, R v (1976) CA

^[Robbery - force - an ordinary word]
D stole a mans wallet after he had lost his balance because he was nudged by others.

Held: Whether this was force was a question to be decided by the jury.
Lawton LJ:

'The choice of the word "force" is not without interest … The jury must use their common sense to decide whether D's actions amounted to force'.

Guilty

Hale, R v (1978) CA

^[Robbery - immediately before or at the time of stealing]
D and E burgled V's house. D was upstairs stealing V's jewellery box E was downstairs tying up V.

Held:

Eveleigh LJ:

'The act of appropriation does not suddenly cease.   It is a continuous act and it is a matter for the jury to decide whether or not the act of appropriation has finished.'

Guilty

Lockley, R v (1995) CA

[Robbery - the "act of appropriation does not suddenly cease. It is a continuous act]

D took goods from an off-licence and was stopped from by the shopkeeper whom he assaulted

Held:  The "act of appropriation does not suddenly cease. It is a continuous act and it is a matter for the jury to decide whether or not the act of appropriation has finished'

Robinson, R v (1976) CA

^[Robbery - theft a vital ingredient]
D took money from V. V's wife owed the money to D.  D argued, the money was not appropriated dishonestly, therefore there was not theft, therefore there could be no robbery.

Held: There was no theft because D believed he had a legal right to the property.

Not guilty

Shendley, R v [1970] CA

^[Robbery - theft important ingredient]

D attacked C, took some of his property and forced him to sign receipts purporting to show that D had bought the property from him.

S said he had purchased the property.

Held: Robbery is committed when theft is carried out by a person using force in order to steal.

Force must be used immediately before or at the time of stealing. Consequently, it is important to know whether or not the theft is complete.

Not guilty of robbery guilty of theft

Sherriff, R v [1969] CA

^[Robbery -  attempt forcibly to pull away is not]
D acting suspiciously was detained by two householders D struggled and but did not deliberately strike them.

Held: An attempt forcibly to pull away was not an assault.

Not guilty

Comment: this case was about an assault not robbery, but is cited in many cases on this subject.

Smith v Desmond [1965] HL

^[Robbery - force can be used against any person not just the owner of the property]

DD robbed a bakery where the night watchman and a maintenance engineer were on duty. Their hands and ankles were bound and they were blindfolded. D's made off with £10,447 from the safe. The Court of Criminal Appeal substituted verdicts of larceny.

Held: The watchman and the engineer were in the building to guard its contents, so that the safe was, at the time when they were assaulted, within the area of their vigilance.  Rendering them powerless enabled the thieves to take the money from the safe; D's had been rightly convicted of robbery.

Guilty