Legal Case Summary
R v Robinson [1977] Crim LR 173
Robbery under Section 8(1) Theft Act 1968, need to prove theft, mens rea for theft.
Facts
The defendant was owed £7 by a woman. He approached the woman’s husband brandishing a knife, and a fight ensued during which the woman’s husband dropped a £5 note. The defendant picked up the £5 note and demanded the remaining £2 owed to him. The defendant was convicted of robbery contrary to section 8(1) Theft Act 1968. The defendant appealed against his conviction.
Issues
The crime of robbery is an aggravated type of theft and it is, therefore, necessary for the prosecution to prove theft under section 1(1) Theft Act 1968. The mens rea for theft is dishonesty and an intention to deprive the other of the property. A defendant will not have appropriated the property dishonestly if he appropriates it in the belief that he has the legal right to appropriate the property for himself under section 2(1)(a) Theft Act 1968. A defendant will not have committed the offence of theft, and, therefore, cannot have committed the offence of robbery even though he used force to acquire the property and knew he was not permitted to use such force to acquire the property, if he believed that he had a right to appropriate the property.
Decision/Outcome
The Court of Appeal quashed the defendant’s conviction for robbery. As he honestly believed he was entitled to the money in law, he did not have the requisite mens rea for theft, and because proof of theft is a necessary pre-requisite for proof of a robbery, the defendant could not have committed a robbery.
Updated 20 March 2026
This case summary remains legally accurate. R v Robinson [1977] Crim LR 173 continues to be good law and is regularly cited in the context of robbery under section 8(1) of the Theft Act 1968 and the dishonesty element of theft under section 1(1). The principle that a genuine belief in a legal right to the property under section 2(1)(a) of the Theft Act 1968 negates the dishonesty required for theft, and therefore for robbery, remains settled law. Note that the test for dishonesty in theft more broadly was restated by the Supreme Court in Ivey v Genting Casinos (UK) Ltd t/a Crockfords [2017] UKSC 67 and subsequently confirmed in the criminal context by the Court of Appeal in R v Booth; R v Barton [2020] EWCA Crim 575. However, this development does not affect the specific principle in Robinson, which turns on section 2(1)(a) of the 1968 Act — a statutory exception to dishonesty that operates independently of any general dishonesty test. The article is therefore still an accurate statement of the law relevant to this case.
