S

Robbery Yr12 Legal Studies

Definition of Robbery

The Crimes Act 1900 does not contain a definition of robbery. There is however, a common law definition which is: Robbery is the act of stealing with the presence of

violence done, or threatened to a victim who stands between the offender and the stolen property. The offender does not have to physically harm the victim but an expressed or implied threat is sufficient enough to be defined as a robbery as the victim feels the fear of violence.

Short DefinitionRobbery is the act of stealing with the

immediate presence of the offender and the victim

Crimes Act 1900 (NSW) and robbery

Part 4, Division 2 is labeled “robbery”

Section 94 states that: Whoever robs or assaults with the intent to rob any

person, Steals any chattel (personal possession), money or

valuable security from another person They are liable for up too 14 years imprisonment

Dealing with Robbery Summarily

Stealing from a person is the only offence under Part 4, Division 2 of the Crimes Act 1900 (NSW) that may be heard summarily

The penalties for these specific crimes are outlined in the Criminal Procedures Act 1986 (NSW) These are separated into table 1 and table 2 offences. These cases are heard in the Local Court. Stealing from a person

Value of property >$5000

Maximum penalty 2 years imprisonment and

100 penalty units

$2000<Value of property<$5000

Maximum penalty 2 years imprisonment and 50 penalty units

Value of Property <$2000

Maximum penalty 2 years imprisonment and 20 penalty points

Robbery in circumstances of aggravation

Under section 95 of the Crimes Act 1900 (NSW) it defines aggravated robbery as shown above.

The circumstances of ‘aggravation’ is outlined under the Crimes Act 1900 s105A which states the circumstances for the crime to be defined as ‘aggravated’ The alleged offender is armed with a weapon More than one person involved in the crime The offender uses corporal violence Alleged offender intentionally or recklessly inflicts bodily harm Depriving the owner of their liberty The alleged offender knows the person/s at the alleged area the

crime occurred.

Section 95 provides: “Whosoever robs, or assaults with intent to rob, any person, or steals any chattel, money, or valuable security, from the person

of another, in circumstances of aggravation, shall be liable to imprisonment for twenty years.”

Robbery in aggravation with Wounding

This type of robbery is seen as a serious indictable offence, of which the offender is liable for a life sentence, depending on the severity of the crime.

“Whosoever commits any offence under s95, and thereby wounds or inflicts grievous bodily harm on any person, shall be liable to imprisonment for

25 years.”

Robbery or stopping mail, being armed or in

company

Section 97(1) defines:

Robbery etc. or stopping mail, being armed or in company: s 97(1):

Whosoever, being armed with an offensive weapon, or instrument, or being in company with another person,

robs, or assaults with intent to rob, any person, or stops any mail, or vehicle, railway train, or person

conveying a mail, with intent to rob, or search the same,

shall be liable to imprisonment for 20 years

Often armed robbery is defined under this act

Robbery Armed with a Dangerous Weapon

This is outlined in Section 97(2) of the Crimes Act. The definition is robbery with a dangerous weapon which is generally a firearm, spear gun, or other prohibited weapons outlined under the: Firearms Act 1996 and the Weapons Prohibition Act 1998

Because the crime involves a deadly weapon capable of easy fatality to a victim, it puts the victim at much greater risk, and is therefore seen as a serious indictable offence. These offences therefore carry a maximum life sentence for offenders.

Robbery with arms and wounding

Section 98 of the Crimes Act 1900 outlines this offence.

It is defined as an offender that robs, or assaults with the intention to rob with an offensive weapon, and inflicts wounds or grievous bodily harm is liable for 25 years (life)

Aggravating factors involve the seriousness of the harm inflicted on the victim, the presence of more offenders and the value of the property.

This offence carries a standard 7 year non-parole period.

Demanding Property with the intent to steal

An offender demanding property from another person with the intent to steal may be liable for 10 years imprisonment. However, the offence may be heard in a local court summarily with a maximum sentence of 2 years imprisonment

An offender demanding property with the company of others are liable for 14 years imprisonment

Classifications of RobberyRobbery

Aggravation

No Aggravation

Weapon No Weapon

Prohibited weapon or

firearm

Wounding or Grievous Bodily Harm

Aggravated Assault s95

20 years maximum

Robbery with a

dangerous weapon S97(2)

Max Life Sentence

No Physical Injury

Aggravating Robbery

with wounding

S95

Max Life Sentence

Heard Summarily

Max 2 years imprisonme

nt

Demanding Property with the intent to

steal

Max 10 years

Demanding Property with the intent to

steal

Max 14 years

In Company of others

Case Study

R v King 2004

Mr. Matthew James King appeals his conviction of armed robbery, with a sentence of 11 years imprisonment.

Mr. King told the court that he had not threatened the victim, and did not deny he had taken money and cigarettes.

The accused stated that he had no possession of a screwdriver when, robbing the victim upon cross examination.

The appealing stated that he had taken the money from a register, and the witness, asked what he was doing, he replied he’s taking money, and had not threatened the victim.

Appendix (R v. King) R v King 2004

Matthew James King appeals against his conviction of armed robbery and seeks leave to appeal against a sentence of imprisonment of 11 years commencing on 16 September 2001 with a non-parole period of 8 years and 3 months expiring on 15 December 2009. The Crown alleged that around 5 am on 13 September 2001 the appellant entered the Lisarow news agency and robbed Patricia Martin of a quantity of cigarettes and money whilst being armed with a screwdriver. The appellant’s fingerprint was found on the handset of the public telephone outside the news agency. He used the telephone shortly before the alleged robbery. The appellant admitted to taking the money and the cigarettes but denied threatening Mrs. Martin. He did not deny that he was guilty of larceny. He insisted that what happened was no more that an unarmed snatch and grab. Mrs. Martin opened the shop at about 2 am on 13 September 2001. At about 4.15 am a regular customer, Mr. Dave Wilson, came to have a cup of tea and toast before he went to work. At about 4. 45 am she saw the appellant using the phone outside the news agency. She didn’t recognize the appellant as one of her regular customers and asked Mr. Wilson to stay a little longer. On two occasions the appellant entered the shop and asked for change for the phone booth and this was provided. She saw him talking on the telephone and she thought that the appellant seemed ‘ok’ and she anticipated that people would be coming through shortly. She told Mr. Wilson to leave. When Mr. Wilson left, the appellant came out of the booth and they chatted for about five minutes. Amongst other things he told her that he was ringing his girlfriend to come and pick him up. He followed Mrs. Martin into the shop. She said that the appellant then went outside and that there was a car coming up the driveway. Mrs. Martin attended to the magazines and was straightening them up. She said that the appellant walked back into the shop, stood at the counter and had his hand over the till. When she asked him what he was doing, he just glared at her. She walked up and was moving behind the counter. He said, “don’t press the f——— button.” She pressed the alarm button, which was located under the counter. He then walked around the counter towards her. She said that he had a screwdriver in his hand and lifted it almost to ear level. She was right in front of it. She estimated that they were two feet away from each other. She was able to slip past him and ran out the front and to the house next door. She spoke to Shirley Isaac who lived there and asserts that she said ‘I’m being robbed, there’s a man in there with a screwdriver, he’s robbing me.’ Shirley Isaac telephoned the police. Mrs. Martin went back towards the shop and saw the appellant at the register behind the counter. She said that she saw the appellant leave the shop and the headlights of a car up the side driveway. She said that when he left the shop the appellant was carrying the cash register drawer, and his arms appeared to be full. The engine of the car was running. The appellant got into the passenger side seat and the car drove off. She said that the whole drawer had been taken from the cash register and a tray full of cigarettes and tobacco was missing. When Mrs. Martin was asked to describe the screwdriver she said she didn’t see the handle and that she just saw the end bit. She described the screwdriver as a normal household screwdriver. She was cross-examined about discrepancies between her evidence in court and what she told police on 14 September 2001. Mrs. Martin said that while the appellant stood and talked other he had nothing in his hand and she did not think that he was wearing gloves. Mrs. Martin insisted that there was about $2000 in the till. She disagreed with the appellant’s statement that it only contained $114. The description which she gave of the cigarettes taken exceeded noticeably the quantity which the appellant claimed he had taken. She said that she was unable to tell whether the driver was male or female. Mrs. Martin agreed that Mrs. Isaac cautioned her going back to the shop but that she went back to see if he was still in there. Although there were a number of discrepancies between the statements made by Mrs. Martin and her evidence and also between the statements, the central message was clear. In her evidence she accepted that some details in her statements were either incorrect or incomplete. The jury may well have taken the view that Mrs. Martin was likely to have been very upset by her encounter with the appellant and that the core of her evidence was correct. There was no identification problem and the appellant conceded that he was in the shop and did a snatch and grab. Snr. Cons Scott attended the scene with Cons Vidler at about 5.20 am on 13 September 2001. He said that Mrs. Martin was shaking and had been crying. She spoke nervously and was in a state of shock. Det. Sgt. McLaghlin, a fingerprint expert, gave evidence that the fingerprint on the telephone handset in the phone booth outside the news agency was that of the appellant. In his evidence at the trial the appellant said that he drove a blue hire car to the telephone booth near the Lisarow News agency. He parked that car in the driveway of the lawn mowing shop, which was next to the news agency. He used the telephone booth and in the process of doing so twice went into the shop to get change. After completing his phone calls he returned to the news agency to thank Mrs. Martin for giving him change and spoke with her for a couple minutes. He said that a car did not pull up nearby. The appellant said that he noticed that the cash register was easily accessible. He made decision to reach over and open the cash register. He intended to take money out of the till and run. He said that he commenced to do that, that after the noise of the drawer opening she asked him what he was doing and that he replied that he was taking her money. He said that nothing was said in relation to the alarm button. He denied that he held anything in his hand. He said that two hands were needed to take the money out of the till, that he had neither a screwdriver nor any other weapon and that he did not threaten Mrs. Martin in any way. He stated he had no intention of stealing money until he was in the shop for the second time, that the lady moved slowly towards him and “just sort of walked towards her counter and then sort of veered off and went outside.” After Mrs. Martin left the shop he continued to take the money drawer out of the cash register. Noticing that there wasn’t much money in it. He took some 20 packets of cigarettes and 7 packets of tobacco. He denied removing any moneybox. He went to the car, put the stolen property on the passenger’s seat and drove away. There was just himself in the vehicle. He later counted the money, the amount taken being $114. In cross-examination the appellant conceded that he had given a very different version of events to the police during his record of interview. He insisted that a police officer had told him that there were two people involved so he thought he “could more or less pass the buck on to somebody that wasn’t even there.” He agreed that as he did not want to get into trouble he started telling lies. The Crown Prosecutor took the appellant through his record of interview at some length. There were a considerable number of lies, many on material matters. The second male was stated by the appellant to be a man known as Dazza. The appellant agreed that he told police that Dazza was going to use a tool or some implement in the robbery. The appellant agreed that this was “a make believe story.” Throughout his cross-examination the appellant asserted that he stole money and cigarettes from the shop, that he did not rob anybody or hurt anyone and had no intention of doing so. He was adamant that he did not hurt anyone with a screwdriver or threaten anyone. The appellant submitted that there was a real issue whether he had or had not been armed with an offensive weapon. Mrs. Martin had been cross-examined directly that the appellant had not been so armed and he had given evidence to that effect. Further, there were the omissions from her earliest formal statement of any reference to a screwdriver. Before the Crown Prosecutor commenced his address, counsel for the appellant submitted that a verdict of stealing was open on the evidence. At T227 counsel for the appellant submitted that upon the indictment for robbery there may be a conviction for simple larceny. The Crown immediately conceded that the jury had the power to bring in a verdict of simple larceny under the common law. At T240 after theonclusion of the Crown Prosecutor’s closing speech the judge ascertained that the Crown was seeking a direction as to lies. The judge stated that with respect to the alternate verdict she understood that she was required to indicate to the jury the elements of stealing. Counsel for the appellant commented that the statutory alternative to armed robbery was robbery or larceny. The judge summed up in accordance with her stated intention and the jury were not told that they could convict of robbery if they were not satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that the appellant was armed with an offensive weapon. There was a conflict of evidence as to whether the appellant was so armed. On any sensible view of the evidence as to what took place, a conviction for stealing did not adequately represent the appellant’s criminal conduct. The victim had been put in fear, whether or not a screwdriver was produced by the appellant. Robbery is a serious criminal offence and carries a maximum penalty of 14 years imprisonment. As an alternative verdict to robbery while armed with an offensive weapon, robbery also represented a major serious criminal offence with a suitably severe maximum penalty.  An examination of the evidence leads to the conclusion that on the cross-examination of the victim and the evidence of the appellant, it was a viable outcome that the jury, if it had been given a choice of convicting robbery, might have done so rather than of robbery while armed with an offensive weapon. It is not without significance that one of the early police reports contained the phrase, “possibly armed with a screwdriver.” That does not suggest that the witness were sure that a screwdriver was provided. The judge erred in not leaving the alternative offence of robbery to the jury. This is not a case in which it can be said that no miscarriage of justice resulted. It was not a case where the jury, if correctly instructed, would necessarily have returned a verdict of guilty of armed robbery with an offensive weapon. Nor is it a case where this Court should substitute a verdict of robbery. The jury found beyond reasonable doubt that he did have and threatened her with a screwdriver. Whether this precludes the appellant from now asserting that simple robbery ought to have been left as an alternative to the jury depends on the question. However that question may be resolved, there must still be a legal basis for leaving the lesser alternative offence to the jury. In cross-examination Mrs. Martin, in insisting that the appellant did produce a screwdriver said, “That’s why I ran out of the shop because he had it pointed at me.” The question is whether the evidence of acts and/or words of the accused up to the point of time when he is said to have produced the screwdriver were sufficient to permit the jury to come to a conclusion beyond reasonable doubt that his conduct and words involved a threat of violence towards Mrs. Martin sufficient to sustain robbery. If there was no element of actual violence, nor a threat of violence in the accused’s words or conduct apart from what he did with the screwdriver, then this essential element can not be resolved in favour of the Crown by reference to Mrs. Martin’s assumed reaction if the jury were not satisfied that there was a screwdriver. The issue up to the close of evidence was whether the Crown had proved beyond reasonable doubt armed robbery rather than the lesser offence of larceny. There was no litigation of the question whether robbery was available as a verdict. That is the way the trial was conducted. Counsel for the accused initially not only saw no advantage to his client in leaving robbery as another alternative with larceny, but said, “It’s against the interests of my client, of course." The context makes it clear that he was moved by his duty of the Court, not to his client, to suggest robbery as an alternative. Rather than an advantage, counsel perceived a disadvantage to his client from leaving robbery as a possible verdict at that stage of the proceedings. Appeal allowed, conviction quashed, new trial ordered. Link here: http://www.lawlink.nsw.gov.au/scjudgments/2004nswcca.nsf/42b5784bfcf616adca256985001383e5/56f2ce49dd2f3abeca256e3b0076dfaa?opendocument