Have you or someone you know been charged with Robbery? A Vancouver Criminal Lawyer can be reached at 604-669-8602
In order to be convicted of an offence, the prosecutor must prove all the elements of the offence, including the act itself (the actus reus) and the mental intent to have done the act (the mens rea). For a robbery conviction, that means they must prove a theft and an assault. By definition, robbery is a combination of both an assault and a theft. Robbery is defined in section 343 of the Criminal Code of Canada, and is an indictable offence. An offence can be either indictable or summary, and typically indictable matters are much more serious than summary offences (like the difference in the United States between a felony and a misdemeanor). Hence, a robbery charge is a serious charge.
When one thinks of a robbery, often what comes to mind is bank robbery or a jewelry store heist. Although those scenarios are certainly accurate, a robbery charge can also arise from a simple theft gone wrong. If a person were to walk into 7-11 and take a chocolate bar, then run away pursued by the store clerk, and have a fight with the clerk, then that person could be charged and convicted of robbery. We once represented a man who stole a CD and tried to run away. He was chased and confronted by store security. A fight ensued and during the fight, our client bit the testicle of the security guard, who suffered a puncture to his testicle. Our client was convicted of robbery. That case was an example of a simple theft allegation gone very wrong, for both the security guard and our client who received a jail sentence. Had he not fought the officer, he would likely have received a much lower sentence for the theft of the CD. It was the assault coupled with the theft that formed the basis for the conviction of the serious offence of robbery. This was the act itself, or the actus reus.
The prosecutor also has to prove the mental element of the offence beyond any reasonable doubt. Assault is a general intent crime, which means the prosecutor must simply prove an intention to apply force. Theft is a specific intent crime, meaning the accused has to have had the specific intent to commit the theft. The law states that intoxication is a defence for specific intent crimes, but not crimes of general intent. Hence, intoxication is a defence to theft but not assault. Since a conviction for robbery requires the prosecutor to prove both theft and assault, intoxication is a defence to robbery. Therefore, if an accused entered a bank and said, “Give me $100 or I will shoot you,” but that person was so intoxicated they didn’t know what they were doing, that accused may well be acquitted of robbery.
If you or someone you know has been charged with robbery, please call a lawyer and seek some advice. At La Liberté Cronin & Company, Terry La Liberté, Q.C. or I, Kasandra Cronin, Q.C., would be happy to provide that advice. There may be a defence to be argued, in addition to intoxication as described above. We are always creative in finding solutions for clients facing charges, including the serious charge of robbery.
– Kasandra Cronin, Q.C.