Investigating Violent Offences (Topic 2 - Robbery) Flashcards
Robbery (Section 234, Crimes Act 1961)
Robbery is:
(1) Theft accompanied by violence or threats of violence
(2) To any person or property
(3) Used to extort the property stolen or to prevent or overcome resistance to its being stolen.
Everyone who commits robbery is liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 10 years.
Taking/theft…
is the moment the item is moved with intent to steal it
(3) Taking does not include obtaining ownership or possession of, or control over, any property with the consent of the person from whom it is obtained,
whether or not consent is obtained by deception.
(4) For tangible property, theft is committed by a taking when the offender moves the property or causes it to be moved.
In R v Lapier (1784) a lady had emerged from an opera house and was preparing to step into her carriage when the defendant snatched her gold and diamond earring, tearing it from her ear. Although he had the earring only momentarily and lost it again when it became tangled in the lady’s hair, the Court held that there had been a “taking” sufficient to constitute robbery.
Once theft is complete, the immediate return of the property will not purge the offence.
Elements of Possession..
The physical element requires the physical custody or control over the item in question and can be either “actual” or “potential”.
Actual possession arises where the thing in question is in a person’s physical custody or control.
Potential possession arises when the person has the potential to have the thing in question in their control. For example, storing the thing in question at an associate’s house or through an agent.
The mental element is a combination of both knowledge that the person possesses the item in question, and an intention to possess the item.
Proof of possession requires proof of both a physical element (the actus reus) and a mental element (the mens rea).
Accompanied by violence..
The prosecution must prove a connection between the violence or threats and the stealing of the property – it must be shown that the defendant not only had an intent to steal at the time the violence or threats were used, but that the “violence or threats were used for the purpose of extorting the property, or preventing or overcoming resistance to its being stolen”.
It would not be sufficient for robbery, for example, if the defendant punched a person for an unrelated reason then took the victim’s wallet as an afterthought.
The violence or threats will usually occur at, or immediately before, the time of the theft, however there may be situations where that is not the case.
In the context of robbery, violence must involve more than a minimal degree of force and more than a technical assault, but need not involve the infliction
of bodily injury.
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 robber’s demands.
However, threats may also be conveyed by inference through the defendant’s conduct, demeanour or even appearance, depending on the circumstances.
A sufficient implied threat may be inferred from “inherently violent” circumstances where the victim is in a vulnerable position.
To any person or property..
These offences are gender neutral, and the fact that the victim is a “person” is generally accepted by judicial notice or proved by circumstantial evidence. The age of the victim is also not relevant.
The threat, or the violence, may be directed against any person, and need not be against the victim or the victim’s property.
Used to extort the property stolen or prevent or overcome resistance to its being stolen.
To “extort” means “to obtain by coercion or intimidation”.
It is not sufficient that the offender simply used violence or threats if such use was for some collateral purpose.
In R v Newell1 the defendant was confronted by a security guard in a parking lot after stealing meat from a supermarket. He swung a knife at the guard
and ran away leaving the meat behind.
The Court of Appeal quashed his conviction for robbery on the basis that the violence had been used not to overcome resistance to the theft, but to facilitate his escape afterwards.
In Newell2 it was held that the theft was complete when the appellant exited the store. The violence cannot be said to be to overcome resistance to the
theft.
In those circumstances charges of theft and aggravated assault or aggravated wounding may have been more appropriate.
Extortion implies an overbearing of the will of the victim, and the prosecution must show that the threats induced the victim to part with their property.
While it is the conduct of the defendant rather than the nerves of the victim that must be assessed, the effect on the mind of the victim is relevant to the question of whether the threats induced the victim to part with their property.
Therefore, if the threats have not in fact affected the will of the victim, there is no robbery.
What is meant by Prevent or Overcome?
Prevent: To “prevent” means “to keep from happening”.
This provision applies when the offender anticipates resistance from the victim, and uses violence or threats to ensure it does not start.
Overcome: To “overcome” means “to defeat; to prevail over; to get the better of in a conflict”.
This provision will therefore apply when the victim is resisting, and the offender uses violence or threats to overpower and subdue the victim.
Aggravated robbery (Section 235, Crimes Act 1961)
Every one is liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 14 years who—
(1) Robs any person
(2) At the time of, or immediately before or immediately after
(A) The robbery causes grievous bodily harm to any person; or
(B) Being together with any other person or persons, robs any person; or
(C) Being armed with any offensive weapon or instrument, or any thing appearing to be
such a weapon or instrument, robs any other person.
(1) Robs any person..
All the elements of robbery must be proved. See the discussion earlier in this study material.
(2) At the time of, or immediately before or immediately after, the robbery…
At the time of:
Where the violence used to extort the property stolen, or to prevent or overcome resistance, has resulted in really serious harm to the person assaulted.
The violence resulting in the infliction of grievous bodily harm may also have been used for some collateral purpose, such as attempting to escape after the robbery.
Immediately before or after:
The term “immediately” refers to the connection in time between the robbery and the infliction of grievous bodily harm. Whether or not that connection amounts to “immediate” is a matter of fact and degree to be considered in each case.
(A) Causes grievous bodily harm to any person.
Grievous bodily harm can be defined simply as “harm that is really serious”.
The term “grievous” refers to the degree of harm, rather than to the nature of it or how it was caused.
The person suffering grievous bodily harm need not be the person robbed.
The Court in R v Wells held that 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.
(B) Being together with any other person robs any person
- Being together with any other person:
The term “together with” requires that two or more people are actually present and acting together in the commission of the robbery. Each must share an intent to steal using their collective force should that be necessary, and each must play some active role in the robbery.
In R v Joyce4 the defendant was charged with aggravated robbery by being “together with” two co-offenders during a robbery. One of the co-offenders had gone into a service station and robbed the attendant, while Joyce and another were “lurking in the neighbourhood” but taking no physical part in the robbery.
The Court of Appeal quashed Joyce’s conviction, stating that section 235(b) is “intended to provide for cases where the victim was confronted by two or
more persons acting in concert”. Mere presence during the commission of robbery, without active participation, is not sufficient; the provision applies only to cases where the forces of two or more persons acting together are deployed against the victim in the actual commission of the offence.
(C) Being armed with any offensive weapon or instrument, or any thing appearing to be such a weapon or instrument, robs any other person weapon
Offensive weapon means any article made or altered for use for causing bodily injury, or intended by the person having it with him for such use.
So for the purposes of section 235 there are three broad classes of offensive weapon:
- Items that are made solely for the purpose of attacking or inflicting injury, such as firearms, swords or knuckledusters.
- Items that may otherwise have an innocent purpose, but have been altered or adapted for use for causing injury, such as a bottle that has been deliberately broken to create a jagged edge.
- Items that are intended to cause injury, which includes anything capable of causing injury that is carried by the defendant for that purpose, such as a baseball bat or a knife.
Discuss caselaw around ‘anything appearing to be..’
It must be proved both that the object appeared to be an offensive weapon or instrument to the victim, and that the defendant intended or was at least reckless as to the possibility that it would be perceived as a weapon. However a “thing” does not include a part of a person’s body.
In R v Bentham the defendant broke into a house where the victim was asleep in bed, and put his hand under his jacket, pushing the material out to
give the impression he had a gun. He threatened to shoot the victim, who handed over money as a consequence of the threat.
The Court in Bentham said, “What is possessed must under the definition be a thing. A person’s hand or fingers are not a thing.
