Martins, R. v (Rev 1)

For robbery under section 8(1) of the Theft Act 1968, force need not be applied directly to the victim. Indirect force may suffice where an offender pulls property from the victim’s grasp and thereby overcomes the victim’s grip. A description of property being grabbed or snatched does not invariably establish force. The trial judge must nevertheless leave the issue to the jury where the evidence, taken at its highest, permits a proper inference that force was used on a person.

The appellant was tried at the Crown Court at Aylesbury on charges including robbery contrary to section 8 of the Theft Act 1968 and inflicting grievous bodily harm contrary to section 20 of the Offences Against the Person Act 1861. He was convicted of both offences and received a total sentence of 27 months’ imprisonment.

During the trial, the prosecution changed its case on robbery. It no longer relied upon force used at a gate during a continuing appropriation. It relied instead upon the appellant’s initial taking of a phone and keys from the complainant’s hands. The recorder rejected a submission of no case to answer. The appellant appealed his robbery conviction by leave of the single judge.

The central issue was whether the evidence that the appellant grabbed or snatched the items was capable of proving force on the complainant for the purposes of robbery.

1. Appeal dismissed. The recorder correctly rejected the submission of no case to answer and left the robbery count to the jury.
2. Section 8(1) of the Theft Act 1968 does not require direct physical contact between robber and victim. Force may be used indirectly on a person. Thus, where property is wrenched from a victim’s grasp, a jury may find that the offender used force on that person. The court treated R v Clouden [1987] Crim.L.R 56 as illustrating that principle.
3. The statutory requirement is not met merely because an item is taken or described as having been snatched. Some takings, including an opportunistic snatching of a banknote passed between people, could not properly support a finding of force on any person. The distinction drawn in DPP v RP, GP and RW [2012] EWHC 1657 Admin remained material: minimal force used to remove an item does not necessarily amount to force on its holder.
4. On a submission of no case to answer, the judge must decide whether the evidence at its highest could properly permit the jury to find force. Here, the jury could infer that the complainant was gripping his phone and keys so that they would not fall or slip, and that taking them by grabbing or snatching required the appellant to pull them free from that grip. That was a legitimate inference from the evidence, rather than impermissible speculation.
5. The court recognised that the prosecution’s late change of case gave understandable cause for objection. However, the evidence provided a sufficient foundation for the revised case, and the defence could have recalled the complainant for further cross-examination if necessary.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): By [2021] EWCA Crim 223, dismissed the appellant’s appeal against his robbery conviction.
• Crown Court at Aylesbury: Before Recorder Guest and a jury, convicted the appellant of robbery and inflicting grievous bodily harm, and imposed a total sentence of 27 months’ imprisonment.