What is a Common Law Robbery?
In the absence of statutory definition, common law robbery has evolved to encompass various aspects of criminal behavior involving force, intimidation, and stealing. It is a critical aspect of criminal law that has shaped the criminal justice system.
Defining Common Law Robbery
Common law robbery, as its name suggests, originated from case law, also known as common law, where the courts had to interpret the meaning and extent of this offense based on judicial precedents. Historically, common law robbery was known as felonious larceny or robbery and assault_. In 1605, the court decided that if a thief intentionally uses violence or threat to obtain stolen property, he could be charged with this offense (Hawk & Others** 3 Crabb. 446).
Over time, courts have clarified the definition and boundaries of common law robbery through numerous decisions. Currently, it can be understood as a form of robbery committed under circumstances other than by burglary or from the person.
Essential Elements
For an act to constitute common law robbery, three key elements must be present:
- taking property with intent to steal – The offender intentionally takes something that does not belong to them, either from a person, by violence, or under color of lawful authority (blackmail).
- use or threat of violence – The taking occurs through fear, violence, or putting the person in fear (intimidation).
- outrage or fear of immediate force – The offense results in alarm, threat of harm, or an instantaneous act of force to steal.
| Element | Explanation |
|---|---|
| Taking Property with Intent to Steal | The intentional removal or carrying away of something else that is either not present or cannot be moved or used |
| Use or Threat of Violence | An act done or an explicit or implied threat that indicates the victim’s personal harm, suffering, or demise is inevitable |
| Outrage or Fear of Immediate Force | An immediate assault or immediate assault threat used to cause emotional distress and prevent victims from defending themselves |
Case Laws and Key Points
There have been numerous judgments, judgments that have influenced our understanding of common law robbery. Two crucial instances should be examined:
Taylor v. Taylor (1933) 59 Co. Er. 347, a Scottish Court case:
- Stipulated the essential components, highlighting intimidation and use or threat of violence, underpinning the doctrine.
Smith v. West [1871] :
- Demonstrated the gravity of common law robbery as the Court regarded it a significant threat to the rights and liberties of citizens. Additionally, emphasized the critical necessity for establishing a legitimate line of reasoning.
Forms of Common Law Robbery
Although common law robbery can involve various means to obtain the stolen goods, the overall purpose of robbery is identical: taking or stealing by the fear or threats of imminent personal violence, regardless of circumstances.
The most typical sub-forms of common law robbery involve:
- Armed robbery – committed by the perpetrator under the assumption that armed confrontation is expected or would not lead to apprehension (Mortimer 17th App. Cr.).
- Handicap robbery or Disabled robbery, targeting persons with mental disabilities, including dementia and severe physical conditions, that undermine their defense capacity (Court of Criminal Appeal).
- Abduction- robbery, using deception and constraint to compel victims into delivering property against their will (Smith v. Gage).
- Virtual-robbery: When one party acquires stolen items by agreeing not to alert authorities (collusive dealing or fencing stolen property) H.R.D.
- Horse thief: Someone with knowledge that stolen items belonged to their original owners was responsible and made away, Steady Docket; State Exrel. Attorney-General, an Illinois District Court judgment that demonstrates another example.
The classification might be varied between jurisdictions depending on circumstances or legislation but general components remain in line.
Sentencing
Depending on jurisdictions and offenses severity, convictions for common law robbery will often receive stern sentences in response to perceived increased violence potential as a danger not only for victims but the wider society.
A person who was convicted for Common Law Robbery with dangerousness of immediate harm for an Adult and Minor Child. There were allegations they stole or taken some articles or assets and held back to assault them on both, also using, intending by, which or not on their right hand’s. There had been taken money. Also there have an article there to that purpose and using of these kinds.
Sentence of an age for those with these issues should provide some certain minimum prison at the sentencing.
This concept, an offense recognized but not in law itself for any formal definitions for certain aspects the jurisdiction it affects.
By studying cases involving common law robbery, lawyers, magistrates, or even people involved, better understanding emerges from court practices. Ultimately, while Common Law principles can shift within a judicial framework. With ongoing reviews, definitions adapt without necessarily abolishing older common law foundations. This case has allowed a review with this development and what I’ll present from that process we are familiar.
