Robbery Case Laws Flashcards
R v Skivington - What was it about?
The defendant went to the office where he and his wife worked and demanded their wage packets two days earlier than they were due. He threatened one of the managers and forced the man at knife point to retrieve the cash from the safe. His conviction for “robbery with aggravation” was quashed on the basis that he genuinely believed he was entitled to the money.
R v Skivington (Claim of right)
“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.”
R v Lapier - What was it about?
In R v Lapier a lady had emerged from an opera house and was preparing to step into her carriage when the defendant snatched her gold and diamond earring, tearing it from her ear. Although he had the earring only momentarily and lost it again when it became tangled in the lady’s hair, the Court held that there had been a “taking” sufficient to constitute robbery.
R v Lapier (Taking)
Robbery is complete the instant the property is taken, even if possession by the thief is only momentary.
R v Cox (Possession)
In R v Cox it was found that both a physical and mental element must be proved to satisfy possession. 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 … and an intention to exercise possession.
R v Maihi - What was it about?
In R v Maihi the complainant wore a leather jacket to a Hamilton hotel. The defendant kept on saying he liked it. Feeling under pressure the complainant handed it to the defendant who tried it on. Sometime later the complainant and his friend asked for it back. The defendant offered to fight them for it which they declined. The defendant and his group left the hotel with the jacket. On the evidence the Crown accepted that the accused had not committed a theft by taking. It submitted, and the trial Judge accepted, that there was evidence of theft by conversion accompanied by a threat of violence satisfying the requirements of s234.
R v Maihi (connection between theft and violence)
“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 …”
Peneha v Police - What was it about?
In Peneha v Police the defendant grabbed a woman’s handbag and attempted to run off with it. When the woman tried to retain her bag, her hand was twisted and pulled backwards to the point where it hurt, and she was forced to let go. The Court held that “though at the lower end of the scale for robbery” this was sufficient to constitute violence for the purposes of that charge.
Peneha v Police (force used in violence sufficient)
It is sufficient that “the actions of the defendant forcibly interfere with personal freedom or amount to forcible, powerful or violent motion, tending to cause bodily injury or discomfort”.
R v Broughton - What was it about?
In R v Broughton two “street kids” approached the victim, a younger male who was sitting alone at a bus stop. They sat on either side of him and asked him if he had any money. When the victim said no, Broughton leaned in close and again asked for money. His manner was not overtly aggressive but his demeanour and the circumstances caused the victim to fear that violence would be used if he continued to refuse, and consequently he handed over some cash. The Court of Appeal held that Broughton’s actions amounted to robbery by threats of violence.
R v Broughton (threat of violence)
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.”
R v Joyce - What was it about?
In R v Joyce the defendant was charged with aggravated robbery by being “together with” two co-offenders during a robbery. One of the co-offenders had gone into a service station and robbed the attendant, while Joyce and another were “lurking in the neighbourhood” but taking no physical part in the robbery.The Court of Appeal quashed Joyce’s conviction, stating that section 235(b) is “intended to provide for cases where the victim was confronted by two or more persons acting in concert”.
R v Joyce (together with)
“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 - What was it about?
R v Galey a young woman lured a Japanese seaman out of a bar on the pretence that she would have sex with him for money. Once outside he was attacked by a male who kicked him, knocked him to the ground and stole his cash. The male’s associate, Galey, kicked the man once in the feet, but had no further participation in the assault or the theft.
R v Galey (being together intention)
“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.”
