Definitions and Case Law Flashcards
Theft
Theft, sec 219(1) Crimes Act 1961
- Dishonestly
- And without claim of right
- Taking any property with intent to deprive any owner permanently of that property
- Or of any interest in that property
R v Skivington
“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 of one of the ingredients in the offence of robbery, without which the fully offence is not made out. “
R v Lapier
Robbery is complete the instant the property is taken, been if possession by the thief is only momentarily
Possession
Possession may be real or constructive
Actual Possession
Actual Possession arises where the thing in question is in a persons physical custody, it is on or about their person or immediately at hand
Warner V Metropolitan Police Commissioner
Ideal Possession (Actual)
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
Constructive Possession
Constructive possession arises when something is not in a persons physical custody, but they have ready access to it or can exercise control over it
Accompanied by
The prosecution must prove:
- a connection between the violence or threats of violence and the stealing of the property
- the defendant had an intent to steal at the time the violence or threats were used
- the violence or threats were used for the purpose of extorting the property, or preventing or overcoming resistance to its being stolen
R v Maihi
It is implicit in “accompany” that there must be a next (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
In the context of robbery, violence must involve more th an a minimal degree of force and more than a technical assault, but need not involve the infliction of bodily injury
R v Peneha
It is sufficient that “the actions of the defendant forcibly interfere with the 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.”
Threats of Violence
A “threat” is generally a direct or veiled warning that violence will be used if the victim does not submit to the robbers demands.
Threats may also be conveyed by inference through the defendants conduct, demeanour or even appearance depending on the circumstances.
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.
To any person (robbery)
Gender neutral. Proven by judicial notice or circumstantially.
Violence or threats can be directed at any person, not just the victim and any property or interest.
Property
Includes any real or personal property, or any estate or interest in any real or personal property, money, electricity and any debt, and includes any thing in action, and any other right or interest.
sec. 2 Crimes Act 1961
Extort
To “extort” means “to obtain by coercion or intimidation”
Extortion implies an overbearing of the will of the victim, and the prosecution must show that the threats induced the victim to part with his property.
Prevent
“To keep from happening”
Overcome Resistance
“To defeat, to prevail over; to get the better of in a conflict”
At the time of
During the commission of the theft, at the time of taking with the required intent.
Immediately before OR Immediately After
Refers to the connection in time between the robbery and the infliction of grievous bodily harm.
Grievous bodily harm
Grievous bodily harm can simply be defined as “harm that is really serious”
DPP v Smith
“Bodily harm” needs no explanation and “grievous” means no more and no less than “really serious”
Being together with
There must be proof that, in committing the robbery the defendant was part of a joint enterprise of two or more persons who were physically present at the robbery.
R v Galey
“Being together” in the context of section 235(b) involves “two or more persons have the common intention to use their combined force, either in any event or as circumstances might require, directly in the perpetration of the crime”
