News2 mins ago
Sent down for Robbery and GBH without intent
My boyfriend and his brother have just been sent down for 6 and a half years for robbery, they also got charged with GBH without intent and got 3 and half years for this. They will serve about 3 years in total. They didn't actually commit a robbery but my boyfriends brother took £30 which he was owed, this was even backed up by the CPS' witness in court. The person who they were supposed to have robbed was my bfs brothers friend of about a year and a bit of a low life to be honest, he started attacking my bf with a metal bar when they simply went round to ask for the money. No robbery was intended or planned and they didn't even intend to hurt him. It was completely innocent. He must have panicked and started attacking them but although he was the aggressor his injuries were deemed worse because he was the apparent 'victim' an my bf didn't even get his injuries properly checked out because he was considered a criminal. Anyway in court the CPS were certain they could not do them for robbery because the evidence was completely against this, and a robbery implies that you have planned it and you have intended to go round and use force to steal from someone. This is why they brought in the 2 other charges which were GBH with intent and GBH without intent. The judge explained to the jury that if they couldn't find them guilty of robbery then they must consider the other two charges. However to eveybodys surprise they found them guilty of robbery and GBH without intent. This doesn't add up, because robbery is the act of going round somewhere with intent to use force and to steal. So the charges don't even add up! We are appealing, as we believe the jury could not have possiblt understood the charges and also there was clear evidence saying money was owed and the only evidence from the CPS was from the so called 'victim' who gave 5 different accounts of his story and claimed that the discrepenceies were because the police had been inventing parts of his statement! I still can't believe what has happened and it all seems so wrong, I just wondered if anyone had any thoughts on how successful the appeal might be or if they can just give me there opinion on this case, as I know my opinion may be slightly biased although I can honestly say they are not guilty of robbery. Thank you.
Answers
jack the hat if you reserch robbery it will state it has to be violence with intent. if anything i feel this points out failings in the justice system and problems of jurys not understandin
15:40 Fri 02nd Sep 2011
Can I also ask, how is it possible to believe a person to be a credible witness if they have given 5 different accounts of what has happened and claim this is because the poilce on more than one occasion and hospital staff have invented parts of his account and official statement. And when what they have said in court matches none of the other witness statements. When this person's story is the ONLY evidence you have to go on, how is it possible to be beyond any doubt that the defendant is guilty? It is the Jurys duty to be certain of a persons guilt before finding them guilty, but how can they be on such flimsy evidence from the CPS?
Hi Luse and RW
As already mentioned, the only people that can advise you and properly answer your queries in full is the legal team that represented your partners.
I can see why you are questioning a conviction for robbery but I believe it will help you more if you understand what the offence is.
In its most basic format, robbery is an aggravated form of theft by the threat or use of force. For there to be a robbery there has to be a theft (excluding attempt offences). Theft is, ‘dishonestly appropriating property belonging to another with the intent to permanently deprive the other of it’.
You are right to query the issue regarding the £30 being owed but I note that a separate ‘alternative indictment’ of theft was added during the trial, obviously indicating this issue of rightful ownership at the relevant time is disputed by the prosecution.
The wording of the offence robbery states:
A person is guilty of robbery if he ‘steals’ and immediately before or at the time of doing so, and in order to do so, he uses force on any person or puts or seeks to put any person of fear of being then or there subjected to force. (the word ‘steals’ means theft as per the definition above).
You have stated that your understanding of robbery is that it has to be pre-planned and requires ‘intent’ for the offence to be complete but if you look at the definition of robbery again you will see that the word ‘intent’ is not included. However, it is clearly obvious intent is required to commit theft and there has to be a theft to complete the offence of robbery and (only) that the use of force, or threat of force must be in order to steal. The question whether the use of force was used to commit the theft is a question of fact and therefore a matter for a jury.
As I have stated, this is the very basic’s of robbery / theft as there is a lot more to it. There is a ton of stated cases regarding all sorts of issues surrounding these two offences but you will get all your answers in detail in due course.
As already mentioned, the only people that can advise you and properly answer your queries in full is the legal team that represented your partners.
I can see why you are questioning a conviction for robbery but I believe it will help you more if you understand what the offence is.
In its most basic format, robbery is an aggravated form of theft by the threat or use of force. For there to be a robbery there has to be a theft (excluding attempt offences). Theft is, ‘dishonestly appropriating property belonging to another with the intent to permanently deprive the other of it’.
You are right to query the issue regarding the £30 being owed but I note that a separate ‘alternative indictment’ of theft was added during the trial, obviously indicating this issue of rightful ownership at the relevant time is disputed by the prosecution.
The wording of the offence robbery states:
A person is guilty of robbery if he ‘steals’ and immediately before or at the time of doing so, and in order to do so, he uses force on any person or puts or seeks to put any person of fear of being then or there subjected to force. (the word ‘steals’ means theft as per the definition above).
You have stated that your understanding of robbery is that it has to be pre-planned and requires ‘intent’ for the offence to be complete but if you look at the definition of robbery again you will see that the word ‘intent’ is not included. However, it is clearly obvious intent is required to commit theft and there has to be a theft to complete the offence of robbery and (only) that the use of force, or threat of force must be in order to steal. The question whether the use of force was used to commit the theft is a question of fact and therefore a matter for a jury.
As I have stated, this is the very basic’s of robbery / theft as there is a lot more to it. There is a ton of stated cases regarding all sorts of issues surrounding these two offences but you will get all your answers in detail in due course.
Latest Posts
News5 mins ago
Festive Drinks Quiz - 5 January
Quizzes & Puzzles25 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles31 mins ago
News35 mins ago
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.