RP & Ors v Director of Public Prosecutions

For robbery under section 8 of the Theft Act 1968, the prosecution must prove force used on a person, or putting a person in fear of such force. The statutory language does not extend robbery to every forcible removal of property. A minimal act of removing a cigarette from between a person’s fingers, without physical contact and without resistance causing contact, does not amount to force on that person. Such conduct is theft, not robbery. Borderline questions concerning minimal force are ordinarily for the court of first instance, and an appellate court should not add a gloss to the statutory words.

The three appellants, who were juveniles at the time, were convicted by Highbury Corner Magistrates’ Court on 31 January 2011 of robbery. Two were also convicted of racially aggravated assault, but those convictions were not challenged.

The robbery conviction arose from RP taking a lit cigarette from Mrs Gill’s fingers after the appellants had asked for a cigarette. The magistrates found that force was used to steal it, but did not find physical contact between RP and Mrs Gill. The appeals by case stated concerned whether that snatching constituted force on a person for the purposes of section 8 of the Theft Act 1968.

1. The appeals against the robbery convictions were allowed. Convictions for theft were substituted, and the sentences already served were left undisturbed.

2. Section 8 of the Theft Act 1968 requires force to be used on any person, or a person to be put in fear of being subjected to force. Although the former distinctions under the Larceny Acts have gone, the requirement of force on a person remains.

3. The authorities establish that the statutory question is one of fact. In Dawson & James [1977] 64 Cr App R 170, the force was direct physical force applied to the victim. R v Clouden [1987] Crim LR 56 likewise involved conduct in which force was applied through the property being taken. Those cases did not require treating every forcible taking of property as force on the person.

4. The magistrates found that the cigarette was snatched without contact with Mrs Gill. The minimal force required to remove it from between her fingers was no more force on her person than removing an item from her pocket. It could not cause pain unless she resisted strongly, in which event direct physical contact would ordinarily occur. The conduct therefore fell on the pickpocketing side of the line and amounted to theft only.

5. Questions about whether minimal conduct amounts to force on a person are initially for the trial court. An appellate court should not impose an additional gloss on the words of section 8.

• Highbury Corner Magistrates’ Court: on 31 January 2011 convicted all three appellants of robbery.
• High Court (Administrative Court): allowed the appeals by case stated, substituted convictions for theft and left the sentences undisturbed.