Larceny n robbery cases PDF

Preview

Summary

Download Larceny n robbery cases PDF

Description

Break and Entering Stanford v The Queen (2007) 70 NSWLR 474， ， [2007]NSWCCA 370 (appeal)Facts: The appellant (Andrew) and Shaw planned to enter the bowling club at Sunday night to obtain money in the club. Shaw entered a club by further open a partly opened window though the He entered the club with a crowbar and took out $30 from the cleaner’s wallet placed on the bar table. He then used the crowbar to swing at the cleaner whom got serious injury and result in loss of the eye. During the whole time, the appellant was waiting outside. Crown asserted appellant liable under joint criminal enterprise principle. Issue: whether the appellant had convinced break and entering. Rule(Ratio): Convictions of offences containing element of 'breaking' unreasonable because unchallenged legal precedent established taking advantage of open window did not constitute 'breaking'. Held (Application): An actual breaking requires, broadly, that [the accused] interfere with the building’s physical security, in a recognised way. “To further open an already open window not so secured, or a door which is ajar, is not a breaking.” Appeal allowed.

Robbery Smith v Desmond [1965] AC 960 (Appeal) Facts: The respondents and two other men broke into the bakery shop and stole money and other property from company’s safe. L, the maintenance engineer and S, a night watchman, were both overcome by masked men and pushed into the workshop. Both were tied-up and blindfolded. S’s keys were taken and both were kept in the toilet with feet tied-up. The respondents broke into cash office and took money. The victims were 33 yards from safe (dependents) with 2 doors between them. They could hear sound of breaking glass and a sound like an oxy-acetylene burner working and heavy banging. In the first trial, the defendants were convicted with robbery with violence; Appealed and won they were not robbery but larceny on the basis that the plaintiff were not at present; Then the plaintiff appealed. Issue: Whether it is robbery with violence or simply larceny? Whether L and S were considered to be at present when the taking of contents from the safe happened. Rule:

Elements of robbery: (1) Intent to steal—taking from the safe (2) Some degree of threat or force putting the person in fear (3) Taking from person—S and L were in the building to give care and

protection to its content. Although the actual or threatened application of force must precede the taking, the victim need not be shown to be physically present when the taking occurs.

Application: Even if they were strapped up in one room, trussed up, tied up, then taken to the lavatory: even after they had been parked in the lavatory, they were in the vicinity so as to be aware, so as to be capable of being aware, of what was going on. Then they 987could be said to be present: their presence, indeed, extended to the area in which the activities were taking place. Assault – to make larceny.

Robbery—Honest belief of a claim of right R v Langham (1984) 36 SASR 48; 84 A Crim R 268- exactly amount Facts: The appellant brought a crossbow valued at $675 from a local sports store. He later returned the crossbow because it did not fit for his purpose. He was only given store credit instead of cash. After attempted to negotiate with store to get the cash as he needed, he brought a shotgun using the store credit and pointed the gun to the store manager and demanded for the balance in cash. Issue: The appellant’s honest belief of a claim right, therefore would not have intention to steal. No robbery if no intention to steal. Rule: An element of the crime of robbery is the intention of stealing. To constitute stealing, and therefore robbery, the property must be taken fraudulently and without bona fide claim of right. A claim of right must be a truly and genuinely held belief held by the accused that he is entitled to take and keep that which he did take. It does not matter whether his claim is reasonable or not as long as he truly believes that he is entitled to take the thing which he took. Application: A genuine belief in a right to take the money then and there from the possession of the departmental manager. If he genuinely and truly in good faith, believed that he was entitled to $301 cash, then he is to be acquitted, even if the belief was unreasonable. Therefore, no mens rea, no robbery, and the conviction quashed. Assault is irrelevant Reasonable is irrelevant

Steal from another person

R v Delk (1999) 46 NSWLR 340; [1999] NSWCCA 134- jewellery case Fact: The appellant was convicted of steal from a person in circumstance of aggravation. He pretended to purchase jewellery worth $183,000 from a store and snatched of the counter, grabbed the jewellery and reached the key to unlock the door to escape. Mr Goldthorp tried to stop the appellant and suffered bodily harm. Issue: whether steals from the person is that the items stolen must be held by the person. (The appellant submits that he did steal the jewellery and he did assault the attendant, but as the goods were on the counter he did not steal them from the person of the attendant, as they were not physically on him at the time of the taking.) Rule: The crime of stealing from the person involves a personal confrontation and the potential for personal conflict and force or fear, particularly if the victim endeavours to stop the theft. In such circumstances it matters not whether the property stolen is on the person of the victim or in his immediate presence. Application: The taking was comparable to a taking from the person. The appeal was dismissed....