Robbery - Case Law Flashcards
R v LAPIER - Robbery Complete
Robbery is complete the instant the property is taken, even if possession by the thief is only momentary.
R v SKIVINGTON - Claim of Right - Defence to Robbery
Claim of right is a defence to robbery and element to theft.
R v PEAT - Robbery Complete
The immediate return of goods by the robber does not purge the offence.
R v MAIHI - Robbery Nexus
There must be a connection between the threat of violence and act of stealing. It does not need to be contemporaneous
PENEHA v POLICE - Violence - Robbery
The actions of the defendant interfere with personal freedom or violent action causing injury or discomfort.
R v BROUGHTON - Threat of Violence - Robbery
The intention to inflict violence, conveyed by words
R v PACHOLKO - Threat of Violence - Robbery
The actual presence or absence of fear on the part of 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.
R v WELLS - to any person - Robbery
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.
R v JOYCE - Together With - Robbery
The Crown must establish that at least two person were physically present at the time the robbery was committed or the assault occurred.
R v GALEY - Together With - Robbery
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 BENTHAM - Armed with - Offensive Weapon
What’s is possessed must under the definition be a thing.
A persons hand or fingers are not a thing.
