The appellant approached a woman who was carrying a shopping basket in her left hand from behind and wrenched it down and out of her grasp with both hands and ran off with it. He was convicted of robbery.
Held: His appeal was dismissed.
‘The old cases distinguished between force on the actual person and force on the property which in fact causes force on the person but, following Dawson and James, the court should direct attention to the words of the statute without referring to the old authorities. The old distinctions have gone. Whether the defendant used force on any person in order to steal is an issue that should be left to the jury. The judge’s direction to the jury was adequate. He told the jury quite clearly at the outset what the statutory definition was, though thereafter he merely used the word ‘force’ and did not use the expression ‘on the person’.’
(1987) Crim LR 56
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – Regina v Dawson and James CACD 1977
At Liverpool Pier Head a sailor on shore leave waiting for the ferry was surrounded by two men, one standing on either side of him, who nudged him on the shoulder, causing him to lose his balance. While trying to keep his balance, a third man got . .
Cited by:
Cited – RP and Others v Director of Public Prosecutions Admn 25-May-2012
Appeal from conviction for robbery – theft of cigarette out of victim’s hand.
Held: The appeal was allowed. The court recognised the distinction between force applied to the object and the person: ‘ This case falls squarely on the side of . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 27 September 2021; Ref: scu.618910
