Robbery

Question 1

Robbery

Answer 1

Robbery
Section 234(1) Crimes Act 1961 (10 years)

Theft
(R v Skivington)

Accompanied by violence or accompanied by threats of violence
(R v Maihi, R v Mitchell, Peneha v Police and R v Broughton)

To any person or property

Used to extort the property stolen, or prevent or overcome resistance to its being stolen

Question 2

Aggravated Robbery-GBH

Answer 2

Aggravated Robbery
Section 235(a) Crimes Act 1961 (14 years)

Robs any person
(R v Lapier and R v Peat)

At the time of, or immediately before or immediately after, the robbery

Causes grevious bodily harm
(DPP v Smith)

To any person

Question 2

Aggravated Robbery-GBH

Answer 2

Aggravated Robbery
Section 235(a) Crimes Act 1961

Robs any person

At the time of, or immediately before or immediately after, the robbery

Causes grevious bodily harm

To any person

Question 3

Aggravated Robbery-with other persons

Answer 3

Aggravated Robbery
Section 235(b) Crimes Act 1961 (14 years)

Being together with any other person or persons
(R v Joyce and R v Galey)

Robs
(R v Lapier and R v Peat)

Any person

Question 4

Aggravated Robbery-weapon

Answer 4

Aggravated Robbery
Section 235(c) Crimes Act 1961

Being armed with any offensive weapon or instrument, or anything appearing to be such a weapon or instrument
(R v Bentham)

Robs
R v Lapier and R v Peat)

Any other person

Question 5

Assault with Intent to rob-GBH

Answer 5

Assault with Intent to Rob
Section 236(1)(a) Crimes Act 1961 (14 years)

With intent to rob any person
(R v Collister, R v Lapier and R v Peat)

Causes grevious bodily harm to that person or any other person
(DPP v Smith)

Question 6

Assault with Intent to rob-armed with offensive weapon

Answer 6

Assault with Intent to Rob
Section 236(1)(b) Crimes Act 1961 (14 years)

With intent to rob any person
(R v Collister, R v Lapier and R v Peat)

Being armed with any offensive weapon or instrument, or any thing appearing to be such a weapon or instrument

Assaults that person or any other person

Question 7

Assault with Intent to Rob-together with other people

Answer 7

Assault with Intent to Rob
Section 236(1)(c) Crimes Act 1961 (14 years)

With intent to rob any person
(R v Collister, R v Lapier and R v Peat)

Being together with other any other person or persons

Assaults that person or any other person

Question 8

Assault with Intent to rob-just assault

Answer 8

Assault with Intent to Rob
Section 236(2) Crimes Act 1961 (7 years)

Assaults any person

With intent to rob that person or any other person

Question 9

Theft

Answer 9

Theft
Section 219 Crimes Act 1961

Dishonesty

And without claim of right

Taking any property
With intent to deprive any owner of that property
(R v Cox and R v Lapier)

Or of any interest in that property

Dishonestly

And without claim of right

Using or dealing with any property
With intent to deprive any owner permanently of that property

Or of any interest in that property

Question 10

R v Skivington

Answer 10

“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 11

R v Lapier

Answer 11

Robbery is complete the instant the property is taken, even if possession by the thief is only momentary.

Question 12

R v Peat

Answer 12

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 13

R v Cox

Answer 13

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.

Question 14

Property defined

Answer 14

Section 2(1) Crimes Act 1961
Property includes real and personal property, and any estate or interest in any real or personal property, money, electricity, and any debt, and any thing in action, and other right or interest.

Question 15

R v Maihi

Answer 15

“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…”

Question 16

Dishonestly-defined

Answer 16

Def: does or omits an act without the belief the there was consent or authority expressed or implied.

Question 17

Without claim of right-defined

Answer 17

A belief at the time in a proprietary or possessory right in the property.

Question 18

R v Mitchell

Answer 18

“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 19

Peneha v Police

Answer 19

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 20

R v Boughton

Answer 20

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 21

DPP v Smith

Answer 21

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

Question 22

GBH

Answer 22

Grievous bodily harm can be defined simply as “harm that is really serious.”

Question 23

R v Joyce

Answer 23

“The Crown must establish that at least two persons were physically present at the time the robbery, was committed or the assault occurred.”

Question 24

R v Galey

Answer 24

“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.”

Question 25

R v Bentham

Answer 25

“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.”