Robbery - case law

Question 1

Claim of right

Answer 1

R v Skivington [1967]
“Larceny [or theft] is an element of robbery, and if the honest belief that a man has a claim of right is a defence to larceny, then it negatives one of the elements in the offence of robbery, without proof of which the full offence is not made out.”

Question 2

Taking

Answer 2

R v Lapier [1784]
Robbery is complete the instant the property is taken, even if possession by the thief is only momentary.

R v Peat [1781]
As in the case of theft, the immediate return of goods by the robber does not purge the offence, subject always to the necessary intent existing at the time of taking.

Question 3

Possession

Answer 3

R v Cox [1990]
Possession involves two … elements. The first, often called the physical element, is actual or potential physical custody or control. The second, often described as the mental element … is a combination of knowledge and intention: knowledge in the sense of an awareness by the accused that the substance is in his possession … an an intention to exercise possession.

Question 4

Intent

Answer 4

R v Collister (1955)
Circumstantial evidence from which an offender’s intent may be inferred can include:
- the offender’s actions and words before, during and after the event
- the surrounding circumstances
- the nature of the act itself

Question 5

Accompanied by violence or threats of violence

Answer 5

R v Maihi [1993]
“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 …”

R v Mitchell [1988]
“There may be occasions 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.”

Question 6

Violence

Answer 6

Peneha v Police 22/8/96
It is sufficient that “the actions of the defendant forcibly interfere with personal freedom or amount to forcible powerful or violent action or motion producting a very marked or powerful effect tending to cause bodily injury or discomfort”.

Question 7

Threats of violence

Answer 7

R v Broughton [1986]
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.’’ 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 8

Grievous bodily harm

Answer 8

DPP v Smith [1961]

“Bodily harm” needs no explanation and “grievous” means no more and no less than “really seroius”.

Question 9

Together with

Answer 9

R v Joyce [1968]
“The Crown must establish that at least two persons were physically present at the time the robbery was committed or the assault occurred.”

R v Galey [1985]
“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 circimstances might require, directly in the perpetration of the crime.”

Question 10

Posession of weapon/instrument

Answer 10

R v Bentham [2005]
“What is possessed must under the definition be a thing. A person’s hand or fingers are not a thing. If they were regarded as property … the court could, theoretically, make an order depriving the offender of his rights to them and they could be taken into the possession of the Police.”