Robbery Case Law

Question 1

R v Skivington

Answer 1

Larceny (or theft) is an element of robber and if the honest belief that a man has 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

R v Lapier

Answer 2

Robbery is compete the instant the property is taken even if possession by the thief is only momentary

Question 3

R v Cox

Answer 3

Possession involves two elements. The first the physical element is actual or potential physical custody or control. The second the mental element is a combination of knowledge and intention. Knowledge in the sense of an awareness that the substance is in his possession and an intention to exercise possession

Question 4

R v Maihi

Answer 4

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 the act of stealing and the threat of violence to be contemporaneous

Question 5

Peneha v Police

Answer 5

It is sufficient that the actions of the defendant forcibly interfere with 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

Question 6

DPP v Smith

Answer 6

Bodily harm needs no explanation and grievous means no more and no less than really serious

Question 7

R v Joyce

Answer 7

The crown must establish that at least two person were physically present at the time the robbery was committed or the assault occurred

Question 8

R v Galey

Answer 8

Being together in the context of s235(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