Introduction
The concept of appropriation, a central element of theft under the Theft Act 1968, is not always a single event. R v Hale [1979] 68 Cr App R 415 established the principle that appropriation can be an ongoing process, especially in robbery cases where force is applied after the initial taking of property. This judgment clarified rules about the timing of appropriation relative to the use of force, a required part of proving robbery. The Court of Appeal's decision in Hale set a key standard for interpreting the actus reus of robbery, specifically the relationship between appropriation and force in theft.
Appropriation as an Ongoing Act
The primary question in Hale was whether the defendants’ actions constituted robbery. The defendants entered a house, one restrained the homeowner, while the other took jewelry. The defense claimed that the appropriation of the jewelry ended before the use of force (restraining the homeowner), meaning the force required "to steal" was absent. The Court of Appeal rejected this. Lord Lane CJ, in the ruling, explained that appropriation could be a continuous act, persisting while the defendants remained in the house and kept control of the items. This interpretation allows force applied at any point during the appropriation to meet robbery criteria.
Significance of R v Hale
R v Hale strongly influenced later decisions on appropriation in robbery cases. It affirmed that appropriation is not limited to the initial moment of taking but can last over a longer period. Before Hale, many viewed appropriation narrowly as the first act of gaining control. Hale expanded this, offering a more flexible method to evaluate robbery cases.
The actus reus of Robbery
Robbery, defined in section 8(1) of the Theft Act 1968, involves theft combined with force or threats. The actus reus of theft includes appropriation, property belonging to another, and dishonesty. Hale clarifies the “appropriation” element in robbery. By stating appropriation can be continuous, Hale ensures force applied at any stage of the theft—even after the initial taking—meets the condition of force used "to steal."
Applying the Hale Principle: Examples
If someone takes an item in a store intending to steal it and later uses force to escape security, the Hale principle applies. The appropriation continues while the person retains control of the item. Force used during this time qualifies the act as robbery. If the person abandons the item before using force, appropriation ceases, and the force becomes a separate offense, not robbery.
In another instance, a thief takes a painting from a house and uses force against the homeowner while exiting. Under Hale, appropriation continues from taking the painting until departure. Force used during this period fulfills the "to steal" condition, making it robbery.
Criticisms and Alternative Arguments
While Hale offers practical guidance, some dispute the notion of continuous appropriation. Smith, in "Appropriation and the Continuing Act Doctrine" (Criminal Law Review, 1980), argues that extending appropriation risks confusion about when the offense concludes. Others propose focusing on the defendant’s intent: if they intended permanent deprivation at the initial taking, later force might relate to an already completed theft. However, courts continue to follow the Hale approach.
Conclusion
R v Hale provides a major interpretation of appropriation in robbery under the Theft Act 1968. The Court of Appeal decided appropriation can be continuous, showing how taking property and applying force are linked. This supports practical application in robbery cases where force occurs after the initial taking. Hale remains a key precedent, shaping how courts assess the actus reus of robbery. It highlights the need to consider all actions when determining if robbery took place, particularly when force relates to ongoing appropriation. While debated, Hale offers clear rules for legal practitioners handling robbery cases and continues to inform legal interpretation.
