Case Law pg 4

Question 1

Hayes v R

Answer 1

Valuable consideration

A valuable consideration is “anything capable of being valuable consideration, whether of a monetary kind or of any other kind; in short, money or money’s worth”.

Question 2

R v Lanier

Answer 2

Robbery complete

Robbery is complete the instant the property is taken, even if possession by the thief is only momentary.

Question 3

R v Skivington

Answer 3

Claim of right - defence to robbery

Defence to theft (claim of right) is a defence to robbery

Question 4

R v Peat

Answer 4

Robbery complete

The immediate return of good by the robber does not purge the offence

Question 5

R v Maihi

Answer 5

“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 …”

Question 6

Peneha v Police

Answer 6

Violence - Robbery

It is insufficient 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”.

Question 7

R v Broughton

Answer 7

Threat of violence - Robbery

A threat of violence is “the manifestation of an intention to illicit 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”.

Question 8

R v Pacholko

Answer 8

Threat of violence - robbery

The actual presence or absence of fear on the part of the complainant is not the yardstick. It is the conduct of the accused which has to be assessed rather than ‘the strength of the nerves of the person threatened’

Question 9

R v Wells

Answer 9

To any person - Robbery

There is no requirement that the harm be inflicted on the victim of the robbery, thus infliction of harm to a person seeking to prevent the escape of the offender would come within the section.

Question 10

R v Joyce

Answer 10

Together with - Robbery

“The Crown must establish that at least two persons were physically present at the time the robbery was committed or the assault occurred”.

Question 11

R v Galey

Answer 11

Together with - Robbery

“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”.