Sources of Law Essay

423 WordsMay 28, 20142 Pages
R v Robinson 1977 In order to prove robbery both actus reus and mens rea of theft must be first proven as described under s1 Theft Act 1968, source 1 lines 1 to 4. Thus a completed theft must be established and the extra element of force, or the threat of force at the time of stealing and in order to steal. Source 1, lines 1 to 4 proven as well. In Robinson 1977 the court of appeal quashed the conviction of robbery, source 1, lines 20. As although they agreed the defendant threatened the victim in order to obtain the money (threatened his victim with a knife and took 5 pounds from the victim who owed him 7 pound when the note fell to the floor). He had an honest belief that he was entitled to this money which secures him a statutory defence under section 2, 1, a. Source 1, lines 20 to 22. This is one of the defences mentioned by the criminal law revision committee as to when a person cannot be said to be dishonest as they have a right in law to deprive another of property which they honestly believe they are entitled to. The case of Robinson 1977 therefore aids understanding of the defences to dishonesty held under section 2, 1, a, b, c. The basic test for dishonesty was further developed by the courts in the case of Ghosh 1982. Which is a twofold test involving both subjective and objective elements. The jury are directed to acquit if they believe that according to the standards of a reasonable man what the defendant did was dishonest, objective. And if so, did the defendant according to the same standards realise it was dishonest. Subjective. The honest belief does not have to be reasonable as illustrated in Holden 1991. But the belief does have to be honest as illustrated in Forrester 1992. Where dishonesty was established and when coupled with the intention to permanently deprive another of the property amount to the mens rea of theft. With a view to the

More about Sources of Law Essay

Open Document