Robbery
Robbery and the law
Each allegation is on different facts in relation to this section.
If you need any advice on a Robbery matter please contact us, and we will respond as soon as possible, or call us on 01923 225212.
Case Study 1
REGINA .v. MACUGOWSKA – COVENTRY MAGISTRATES COURT
The Defendant, was charged in October 2013, on alleged offences dating back to July 2014.
The Charges;
(1) That in July 2014, entered as a trespasser in a non-dwelling building, stole therein stationary and food, contrary to section 9910(b) Theft Act 1968.
(2) Attempted Burglary other than a dwelling with intent to steal, entered as a
trespasser contrary to Section 1(1) Criminal Attempts Act 1981.
Penman Sedgwick were accordingly instructed.
The magistrates Court was elected for trial and after argument was accepted by the Magistrates.
Not Guilty pleas were proffered to both charges.
FACTS:
The building was governed by CCTV on a 24 hour 7 day week recorded basis, encompassing the building in entirety by way of various CCTV camera facilities. Penman Sedgwick insisted on full evidence being provided as to all aspects of the case, and served upon the Crown a Defence Statement. Various applications were made to court by the Defence to elicit evidence, and as a result, the allegation concerning theft of food was withdrawn.
We considered that matters of Law were important in this case, and served a detail Abuse of Process Skeleton Argument upon the Crown and the Court, and set down for the Trial date to be argued.
At Trial, representations were made, and the Crown withdrew the two charges, and in place
placed one charge, being Section 9(1)(a): Entering a building or part of a building as a trespasser with intent to steal.
There indeed was no argument about entering a building at midnight hour, using a master key that had not been returned on dismissal from employment in July 2104.
A Plea of Guilty was then entered.
SENTENCE:
Penman Sedgwick mitigated before the District Judge, and the sentence was:
FINE :
£200.00
Prosecution costs : £85.00
Victim surcharge : £20.00
THE LAW:
A Triable either way offence.
Maximum when tried summarily: £5,000.00 fine and/ or 26 weeks custody.
On Indictment:
10 Years Custody
Case Study 2
In the Matter of L ( A Minor ) – Watford Youth Court – 30.8.11
The minor was charged with Robbery contrary to Section 8(1) of the Theft Act 1968 with others.
Penman Sedgwick defended.
The Crown Prosecution were served with a Further Disclosure Request, requiring specific disclosure, and Further Information going to a Section 78 Application, Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984.
As a result the Crown Prosecution Service discontinued the matter.
An Application was made for Defence costs to be taxed from the Central Fund, which was granted by the Magistrates
Case Study 3
Magistrates Youth Court – In the case of B ( A Minor )
A minor was charged with robbery contrary to section 8(1) of The Theft Act 1968. A most detailed Defence Statement was submitted. Despite representations at plea, the date was set for trial. In the interim, detailed representations and disclosure requests were made to the Crown Prosecution Service, with further representations specifically directed at section 78 PACE 1984, and the Attorney General Guidelines, and in particular the duty to pursue reasonable lines of enquiry in investigation.
RESULT
The Crown Prosecution Service discontinued the charge.
APPLICATION TO THE COURT
The charge be withdrawn in Court and application for Defence Costs Order (assessment ) and was granted by the Court to be paid subject to assessment by HMCS National Taxing Team.
THE LAW:
Section 8 (1) Theft Act 1968: A person is guilty of robbery if he steals, and immediately before or at the time of doing so, and in order to do so, he uses any force or puts or seeks to put any person in fear of being then and there subjected to force.
Download our brochure