Monitoring the Practice of Applying Provisions of Laws on Robbery by Sudden Snatching
Provisions of the criminal law doctrine regarding the considered way of committing robbery are analysed in the paper. Additionally, the author places special emphasis on the analysis of court practice which is presented considering different understanding of this way to commit the offence by different courts which, of course, entailed different qualifications of the offence. This difference is caused by an ambiguous understanding of not asmuchsuddensnatchingasitsrelationtoviolencetowhichtheauthorpaidspecialattention. Moreoftenthat not, the doctrine and courts regard sudden snatching as violence and thus consider it necessary to qualify it as a violent act. Examples are given of qualifications where sudden snatching was qualified not only as robbery but also as forcible robbery, aggravated robbery, theft. The author does not always agree with the position of courts thus expressing her critical attitude towards their assessments. The author states a lack of logic in the understanding and applying the letter of the law by courts and as a result makes her final judgment that sudden snatching and violence are not identical. The author draws conclusions for each court decision in particular and the paper as a whole with a view to a single and uniform understanding and application of criminal law.