Case Law Flashcards
_R v Skivington [1967] _
_R v Skivington [1967] _
“Larceny [or theft] is an ingredient of robbery, and if the honest belief that a man has a claim of right is a defence to larceny, then it negatives one of the ingredients in the offence of robbery, without proof of which the full offence is not made out.”
Claim of right is a defence to robbery. COR means theft cannot be committed, therefore COR is a defence to robbery
Must know case law - Robbery
− _R v Skivington _
− _R v Lapier _
− _Warner v Metropolitan Police Commissioner
− R v Mohan
− R v Waaka
− R v Maihi
− Peneha v Police
− R v Broughton
− R v Joyce
− R v Galey
− R v Heard _
_- DPP vs Smith _
− R v Skivington - COR Defence to robbery
− R v Lapier - Temporary possession enough
− Warner v Metropolitan Police Commissioner - Ideal possession defined
− R v Mohan - Intent decision (car)
− R v Waaka - fleeting vs firm intent
− _R v Maihi - _Violence must be realted to, but not necassarily contemporaneous to theft
− Peneha v Police - low level violence sufficient
− R v Broughton - How threat can be conveyed
− R v Joyce - Together with definition / limitations
− _R v Galey _- Together with definition / limitations
− R v Heard - Definition fo ‘Demands’
_- DPP vs Smith _- GBH definition
R v Lapier
_R v Lapier _
Robbery is complete the instant the property is taken, even if possession by the thief is only momentary.
(nice to know R v Peat - silk coin purse highwayman)
Warner v Metropolitan Police Commissioner (ideal)
Warner v Metropolitan Police Commissioner (ideal)
The term “possession” must be given a sensible and reasonable meaning in its context. Ideally, a possessor of a thing has:
- complete physical control over it
- knowledge of its existence, its situation and its qualities.
_R v Mohan _
_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 …”
R v Waaka
_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”.
R v Maihi
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 …”
_R v Broughton _
_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.”
_Peneha v Police _
_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”.
_DPP v Smith _
DPP v Smith
“Bodily harm” needs no explanation and “grievous” means no more and no less than “really serious”.
_R v Joyce _
_R v Joyce _
“The Crown must establish that at least two persons were physically present at the time the robbery was committed or the assault occurred.”
_R v Galey _
_R v Galey _
“Being together” in the context of section 235(b) involves “two or more persons having the common intention to use their combined force, either in any event or as circumstances might require, directly in the perpetration of the crime.”
_R v Heard _
R v Heard
“The form of words used for a demand does not matter. “Demand” is a strong word, but … a demand does not have to be couched in abusive terms, so long as it is clear that it is a request for something.”
