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 his hand into the sailor’s pocket and took his wallet. It was contended before the trial court that that did not amount to the offence of robbery. The judge left the offence to the jury, who convicted him. In giving the judgment of the court,
Held: Lawson LJ said:
‘The choice of the word ‘force’ is not without interest because under the Larceny Act 1916 the word ‘violence’ had been used, but Parliament deliberately on the advice of the Criminal Law Revision Committee changed that word ‘force’. Whether there is any difference between ‘violence’ or ‘force’ is not relevant for the purposes of this case; but the word is ‘force’. It is a word in ordinary use. It is a word which juries understand. The learned judge left it to the jury to say whether jostling a man in the way which the victim described to such an extent that he had difficulty in keeping his balance could be said to be the use of force. The learned judge, because of the argument put forward by Mr Locke, went out of his way to explain to the jury that force in these sort of circumstances must be substantial to justify a verdict.
Whether it was right for him to put that adjective before the word ‘force’ when Parliament had not done so we will not discuss for the purposes of this case. It was a matter for the jury. They were there to use their common sense and knowledge of the world. We cannot say that their decision as to whether force was used was wrong. They were entitled to the view that force was used.’
Lawson LJ
[1977] 64 Cr App R 170, [1978] 68 Cr App R 170
England and Wales
Cited by:
Cited – Regina v Clouden CACD 1987
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 . .
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: 30 September 2021; Ref: scu.618909 br>