Robbery Flashcards
Robbery
Section 234(1) CA 1961
- Theft
- accompanied by violence or accompanied by threats of violence
- to any person or property
- used to extort the property stolen, or to prevent or overcome resistance to its being stolen
Aggravated Robbery (section 235(a)
- robs any person
- at the time of, or immediately before or immediately after, the robbery
- causes GBH
- to any person
Aggravated Robbery (section 235(b)
- being together with any other person or persons,
- robs
- any person
Aggravated Robbery (section 235(c)
- being armed with any offensive weapon or instrument, or any thing appearing to be such a weapon or instrument
- robs
- any other person
Assault with intent to Rob (236(1)(a))
- with intent to rob any person
- causes GBH to that person or any other person
Assault with intent to Rob (236(1)(b))
- with intent to rob any person
- bring armed with any offensive weapon or instrument or anything appearing to be such a weapon or instrument
- assaults that person or any other person
Assault with intent to Rob (236(1)(c))
- with intent to rob any person
- being together with any other person or persons
- assaults that person or any other person
Assault with intent to rob (236(2))
- Assaults any person
- with intent to Rob that person or any other person
R v LAPIER
“Robbery is complete the instant the property is taken… even possession by the thief is only momentary”
R v SKIVINGTON
“a defence to theft is a defence to robbery”
R v PEAT
“the immediate return of the goods by the robber does not purge the offence”
R v COX
In relation to robbery;
“both a physical and mental element must be proved to satisfy possession”
R v MAIHI
“must be a nexus between the act of stealing and the threat of violence”
PENEHA v POLICE
“It is sufficient, that the acts of violence interfere with the victims freedom”
R v BROUGHTON
“threat may be direct or veiled, conveyed by conduct or words”
“absence of fear by victim does not negate the threat”
R v BENTHAM
“ what is possessed must, under the definition, be a thing. A person’s, hand or fingers are not a thing”
R v JOYCE
“Crown must prove two or more were physically present at the time of the robbery or assault”
R v GALEY
“ being together in the context of (B) involves the two having the common intention to use their combined force”
R v MITCHELL
“where property is handed over to a thief, as a result of threats previously made, but still operating on the mind of the victim at the time… The question will be one of fact, and degree in each case”
