Archer, R. v

Conduct amounting to a separate assault may also provide evidence of participation in a robbery. A jury may infer joint participation where, viewed in its context, the defendant’s conduct was directed to assisting the principal offender. Mere presence is insufficient; the defendant must intend to encourage or assist and must do so.

For kidnapping, force includes a threat of serious violence. The requirement of taking or carrying away is capable of being met where the victim, acting under such threats and against his will, drives the offenders in his own vehicle.

The appellant was convicted at Luton Crown Court of kidnapping and robbery, and had pleaded guilty to common assault. The robbery was committed by his co-accused, who took a mobile telephone from another group in a car park.

The prosecution alleged that the appellant assisted that robbery by approaching a nearby vehicle, taking its keys and assaulting its driver. The appellant maintained that this was an independent offence and that he had not participated in the robbery. He appealed against the robbery conviction and renewed an application for leave to appeal against the kidnapping conviction.

The central issues were whether there was a case to leave to the jury on participation in the robbery, whether the jury directions were sound, and whether threats causing the complainant to drive the offenders could amount to kidnapping.

1. Appeal dismissed; renewed application for leave to appeal refused. The evidence on the robbery count was not so tenuous that it should have been withdrawn from the jury. The appellant’s conduct towards the driver of the nearby vehicle could both constitute the admitted assault and provide evidence that he was assisting the co-accused’s robbery.

2. The jury could infer, from the appellant’s knowledge of the people present, the proximity of the vehicles and the timing of his conduct, that he acted to support the robbery. It was open to them to conclude that he sought to prevent the driver from intervening or leaving the scene, rather than acting independently. The trial judge therefore correctly rejected the renewed submission of no case to answer.

3. The summing-up correctly explained joint participation. An agreement may be tacit and formed on the spur of the moment, but presence alone does not establish guilt. The jury were expressly directed to acquit of robbery if the appellant was merely present or was committing an independent offence without intending to assist or encourage the robbery. The robbery verdict was safe.

4. The court applied the four elements of kidnapping stated in R v D [1984] AC 778. A threat of serious violence can supply the necessary force. A victim who allows offenders into his vehicle and drives them under their instructions because of that threat is taken or carried away for the purposes of the offence. The facts were capable of satisfying those requirements, so there was no basis to grant leave to challenge the kidnapping conviction.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): Dismissed the appeal against the robbery conviction and refused the renewed application for leave to appeal against the kidnapping conviction.
• Luton Crown Court: The appellant was convicted of kidnapping and robbery on 31 January 2011, after a jury trial, and had pleaded guilty to common assault.