ROBBERY case law Flashcards
R v Skivington
Claim of right is a defence to robbery.
R v Lapier
Robbery is complete the instant the property is taken, even if the possession by the thief is only momentarily.
R v Peat
The immediate return of goods by the robber does not purge the offence.
R v Broughton
A threat of violence - is the manifestation of an intention to inflict violence unless money or property be handed over. The threat maybe direct or veiled. It may be conveyed by words or conduct, or a combination of both.
DDP v Smith
Bodily harm needs no explanation and grievous means no more and no less than really serious.
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 Joyce
Being together with require two or more people acting (physically present together) in the commission of an offence)
R v Maihi
It is implicit in accompany that there must be a nexus (Connection or link) between the act of stealing … and the threat of violence. Both must be present. However the term does not require that the act of stealing and threat of violence be contemporaneous.
Peneha v Police
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.
R v Peat
Return does not negate the offence.
R v Maihi
There must be a connection between the act of stealing and the threat of violence. Both must be present, however, the term does not require that the act of stealing and threat by made contemporaneously
R v Bentham
What is possessed must under the definition be a thing. A person’s hand or fingers are not a thing. (Armed with - offensive weapon)
R v Mitchell
Previously made threats on the victims’ mind assessed by the fact and degree in each case.
