Case Law Flashcards
DEFENCE
(Claim of Right) - R v SKIVINGTON
That any defence for a charge of theft will also be a defence to a charge of robbery. Therefore, the defence of claim of right is a defence to robbery.
POSSESSION OBTAINED R v LAPIER
The theft must be complete to the point where possession of the property is obtained by the thief, even momentarily.
ACCOMPANIED BY VIOLENCE - R v MAIHI
“It is implicit in ‘accompany’ that there must be a nexus (connection or link) between the act of stealing … and a threat of violence. Both must be present.” However the term “does not require that the act of stealing and the threat of violence be contemporaneous…”
VIOLENCE PENEHA v POLICE
It is sufficient that “the actions of the defendant forcibly interfere with personal freedom or amount to forcible powerful or violent action or motion producing a very marked or powerful effect tending to cause bodily injury or discomfort.”
THREAT OF VIOLENCE R v BROUGHTON
A threat of violence is “the manifestation of an intention to inflict violence unless the money or property be handed over. The threat may be direct or veiled. It may be conveyed by words or conduct, or a combination of both.”
INTENT R v MOHAN
Intent involves “a decision to bring about, in so far as it lies within the accused’s power, the commission of the offence…”
INTENT R v WAAKA
A “fleeting or passing thought” is not sufficient; there must be a “firm intent or a firm purpose to effect an act.”
BEING TOGETHER WITH R v JOYCE
‘Being together’ require two or more people acting (physically present together) in the commission of an offence.
BEING TOGETHER WITH - R v GALEY
The offence requires proof that the accused was part of a joint enterprise of robbery by two or more persons, who are physically present at the robbery, who share an intent to rob (which requires each intended to steal using their collective force should that be called for), and each of whom must play some definite part to accomplish the design.
