R v Dawson and James (1977) 64 Cr App R 170
Robbery contrary to section 8(1) Theft Act 1968, use of force on any person, ordinary word, for the jury to determine whether force has been used.
Facts
One defendant pushed the victim who lost his balance enabling the second defendant to steal his wallet. The two defendants were convicted of robbery and appealed against their convictions on the basis that the nudging or pushing of the victim did not amount to the use of force on another person and, therefore, was insufficient to amount to the actus reus for robbery.
Issues
To successfully convict a defendant of the offence of robbery under section 8(1) Theft Act 1968, the prosecution must prove that a completed theft under section 1(1) Theft Act 1968 has occurred and that, immediately before or at the time of stealing and in order to do so, the defendant used force on any person or put or sought to put any person in fear of being then and there subjected to force. The argument that jostling, nudging or pushing a victim could not amount to force for the purposes of the offence of robbery was rejected by the Court of Appeal. Force was to be considered an ordinary word for the jury to apply using their common sense. The court did not decide whether the trial judge was right to tell the jury that the force must be “substantial”. It is a question of fact for the jury to decide whether force has been used and it was open to them to consider that the nudging amounted to the use of force.
Law Teacher writing support
Writing a law essay?
We choose a writer who is an expert in your area of law and qualified to at least the academic level you select. Most of our writers hold a master’s degree or PhD, have teaching experience, or both.
Send us your question and, if you wish, any marking criteria. We’ll write an essay to your instructions.
Decision/Outcome
The convictions of both defendants were upheld. The issue as to whether force has been applied is a question of fact for the jury to decide.
