Subscribe to the RSS feed Print this page

Aggravated robbery where aggravating feature is two or more people (Section 235(b) Crimes Act 1961)

[Note: The following question trail rests on the factual assumption that Mr Smith committed the robbery, and Mr Green’s involvement turned the crime into aggravated robbery. In this case, both Mr Smith and Mr Green are liable as principals: see R v Feterika [2007] NZCA 526; R v Newson [2012] NZCA 408, (2012) 26 CRNZ 321; and Skeet v R [2016] NZCA 198, (2016) 28 CRNZ 1. It is important to note that as long as the Crown establishes that the actions of two or more people acting together constitute an offence under s 235(b), then additional participants (who the Crown does not allege were acting together with the principals) may be liable as parties: see R v Newson [2012] NZCA 408, (2012) 26 CRNZ 321; and Rome v R [2012] NZCA 476.]

Charge 1: Aggravated robbery under section 235(b) of the Crimes Act 1961

The Crown must prove each element of the offence. That is called the burden of proof. The Crown carries that burden. Also, the Crown must prove each element beyond reasonable doubt. That is called the standard of proof. It means you must be sure that each element is proved.

1.

Are you sure that Mr Smith and Mr Green shared the common intention of stealing some of Mr Jones’ property using their collective force?
 

If no, find Mr Smith not guilty.

If yes, go to question two.
2.

Are you sure that it was Mr Smith who took Mr Jones’ wallet and watch?
 

If no, find Mr Smith not guilty.

If yes, go to question three.
3.

Are you sure that Mr Smith took the wallet and watch dishonestly?
 

“Dishonestly” means Mr Smith took the wallet and watch without genuinely believing that Mr Jones, or anyone else entitled to give consent, consented or gave him authority to do so. The belief does not need to be reasonable.

If no, find Mr Smith not guilty.

If yes, go to question four.
4.

Are you sure that Mr Smith took the wallet and watch without claim of right?
 

“Claim of right” means Mr Smith genuinely believed he had a lawful right to take the wallet and watch.

If no, find Mr Smith not guilty.

If yes, go to question five.
5.

Are you sure that Mr Smith took the wallet and watch with the intent to permanently deprive Mr Jones of them?
 

[Note: Amend or delete (a) or (b) of the definition of “intent to permanently deprive” set out below as required.]

“Intent to permanently deprive” includes an intent to deal with the wallet and watch in a way which means:

(a) the wallet and watch cannot be returned to Mr Jones in the same condition; or

(b) Mr Jones is likely to be permanently deprived of the wallet and watch or of any interest in the items.

If no, find Mr Smith not guilty.

If yes, go to question six.
6.

Are you sure that Mr Smith punched Mr Jones [or threatened to punch Mr Jones] so he could take the wallet and watch [or to prevent resistance to the wallet and watch being taken]?
 

If no, find Mr Smith not guilty.

If yes, go to question seven.
7.

Are you sure that, at the time Mr Smith took the wallet and watch and punched Mr Jones [or threatened to punch Mr Jones], Mr Green actively participated by saying “give it to him” or words to that effect?
 

If no, find Mr Smith not guilty.

If yes, find Mr Smith guilty.