Facts
- The defendants entered a house; one restrained the homeowner while the other took jewelry.
- The defense argued that appropriation of the jewelry ended before any force was applied.
- The prosecution contended that the force used (restraining the homeowner) was part of the theft.
- The sequence of actions inside the house raised questions about the timing of appropriation and the use of force in robbery.
Issues
- Whether appropriation, for the purposes of the Theft Act 1968, is a single event or can be a continuing act.
- Whether force used after the initial taking of property can satisfy the requirement of force used "to steal" for robbery.
Decision
- The Court of Appeal held that appropriation can be a continuous act, not confined to the initial moment of taking.
- It was determined that force used at any point during the act of appropriation could fulfill the requirement of force used "to steal" in robbery.
- The defendants’ acts were found to constitute robbery under section 8(1) of the Theft Act 1968, as appropriation persisted while they were still controlling the items inside the house.
Legal Principles
- Appropriation for theft and robbery under the Theft Act 1968 may be ongoing, rather than instantaneous.
- Force applied at any stage during ongoing appropriation can satisfy the requirements of robbery.
- The actus reus of theft (appropriation, property belonging to another, dishonesty) must be considered alongside the timing of force.
- The approach from R v Hale emphasizes a practical assessment of the connection between taking property and use of force.
Conclusion
R v Hale clarified that appropriation can be considered a continuing act, allowing force used after the initial taking to satisfy the robbery requirement. This interpretation supports a broader, practical application of section 8(1) of the Theft Act 1968 in cases where force and appropriation overlap, and remains a key precedent in English criminal law.
