## Facts

- The defendant wrestled a woman’s handbag from her hands using force.
- The struggle caused the handbag to fall to the ground.
- The defendant did not take possession of or leave with the handbag after it fell.
- The main legal question was whether this action constituted "theft" necessary for a robbery conviction under Section 8 of the Theft Act 1968.

## Issues

1. Whether a fleeting appropriation, where the defendant does not retain possession of the property, satisfies the requirement of "steals" for robbery under Section 8 of the Theft Act 1968.
2. Whether the act of wresting property from a victim’s possession, even if not ultimately removed by the defendant, constitutes theft.

## Decision

- The Court of Appeal held that the act of wresting the handbag away from the victim, regardless of whether the defendant kept or removed the bag, constituted an appropriation for theft.
- A fleeting or momentary control over property was deemed sufficient to satisfy the Theft Act’s definition of appropriation in the context of robbery.
- The court clarified that the requirement of "steals" in robbery is met as soon as the property is taken from the victim, even if not retained.

## Legal Principles

- Robbery under Section 8 of the Theft Act 1968 requires theft aggravated by force; all elements of theft must be met, including appropriation and intention to permanently deprive.
- Appropriation for theft can be momentary; complete removal or continued possession of the property is not required for a robbery conviction.
- Prior case law, such as R v Robinson and R v Forrester, established that a belief in a legal right may negate dishonesty, affecting theft, but Corcoran v Anderton clarified that minimal appropriation accompanied by force suffices.
- The court distinguished robbery from theft by emphasizing the immediate use of force, not the duration of control over the property.
- The principle that any appropriation, even momentary, qualifies as "stealing" in robbery was reaffirmed and guides subsequent cases and jury directions.

## Conclusion

Corcoran v Anderton confirmed that momentary appropriation of property using force is sufficient to constitute theft within robbery for the purposes of Section 8 of the Theft Act 1968, even if the defendant does not ultimately retain or remove the property.


Corcoran v Anderton (1980) 71 Cr App R 104