343

Robbery

343 Every one commits robbery who

 

Annotations | French

  • Robbery may be committed in one of four ways: R v Jean, 2012 BCCA 448 at para 23.

     

  • Regardless of the way in which the robbery is committed the offence “carries a double mens rea requirement. First, the offender must intend to use violence or force, and in the case of s343(d) intend to carry the offensive weapon in question”: R v Hillback, 2023 SCC 3 at para 10; R v Pelletier, 1992 CanLII 12794 (Que CA); R v Strong, 1990 ABCA 327 at para 33; R v Nadolnick, 2003 ABCA 363 at para 21; R v Roberts, 2016 NLTD(G) 18 at paras 152-154.

     

  • Second, whether the robbery involved actual stealing (s343(a), (b) and (d)) or simply an intent to steal (s343(c)), the offender must have had the requisite mens rea requirement for theft given that s.2 of the Criminal Code defines “steals” as “to commit theft.” This mens rea requirement for theft requires a fraudulent intent, the absence of any colour of right over the property, and an intent to deprive an owner of their property”: R v Hillback, 2023 SCC 10 at para 10; R v Dorosh, 2003 SKCA 134 at para 14.

(a) steals, and for the purpose of extorting whatever is stolen or to prevent or overcome resistance to the stealing, uses violence or threats of violence to a person or property;

 

Annotations | French

  • The crime of robbery contrary to s343(a) is a specific intent crime with two key components: the act of stealing and in so doing, using or threatening to use of violence: R v Jean, 2012 BCCA 448 at paras 22-26; R v Newell, 2007 NLCA 9 at para. 32.

     

  • The essential elements of the offence of robbery contrary to s343(a) are:
    1. To steal;
    1. To use violence or threats of violence;
    1. To use the violence or threat for the purpose of either
      • a. ‘extorting whatever is stolen, or
      • b. To prevent or overcome resistance to the stealing: R v Jean, 2012 BCCA 448 at para 23.

         

  • "Steal" is defined in s.2 of the Code as meaning "to commit theft". Committing theft is in turn dealt with in s.322. Section 322(2) provides the following:
    • Time when theft committed
    • (2) A person commits theft when, with intent to steal anything, he moves it or causes it to move or to be moved, or begins to cause it to become movable: R v Jean, 2012 BCCA 448 at para 24.

       

  • The dictionary definition of “extort” is in part: “to wrest from a reluctant person by force, violence, torture, intimidation”: R v Jean, 2012 BCCA 448 at para 25.

     

  • A robbery perpetrated by pursuant to s343(a) is “categorically a crime of violence.”: R v Lebar, 2010 ONCA 220 at para 33; R v Steele, 2014 SCC 61 at para 50.

     

  • Where the robbery is perpetrated by way of threat of violence via s343(a) there is no additional minimum level of violence required for the offence to be made out: R v Lecky, 2001 CanLII 6026 (Ont CA) at para 4.

     

  • The threat of violence for the purpose of s343(a) is “really a threat to cause physical harm or injury, thereby linking violence with the causation of harm or injury rather than the application of force”: R v CD, 2005 SCC 78 at para 32; R v Lecky, 2001 CanLII 6026.

     

  • All that is required to prove a threat is sufficient evidence to “support a finding that an ordinary reasonable person would have felt a threat of violence conveyed in all the circumstances”: R v MacCormack, 2009 ONCA 72 at para 85.

     

  • A threat may be explicit or implied: R v Pelletier, 1992 CanLII 12794 (Que CA).

     

  • Where the threat is implied it "must be accompanied by a reasonable apprehension of physical harm": R v Sayers, 1983 CanLII 3496 (Ont CA); R v Olivieros Ortega, 2014 ONSC 6414 at para 9.

     

  • For example, where a bank robber says, “robbery in progress” and makes gestures including trying to open the cash drawers, it is reasonable for the teller to have had an apprehension of physical harm, unless they complied with the demand: R v Sayers, 1983 CanLII 3496 (Ont CA) at para 15

     

  • A reasonable apprehension of a physical harm means a "fearful state of mind that is reasonable in all of the circumstances”: R v Oliveiros Ortega, 2014 ONSC 6414 at para 10.

     

  • The threat of violence component, pursuant to s 343(a), is completed once the “threat has been uttered, whether or not it has any impact on its intended target”: R v Olivieros Ortega, 2014 ONSC 6414 at para 18.

     

  • Where the robbery is perpetrated with actual force and not just the attempt thereof, the violence requirement is satisfied by reference to the offence of assault. In other, words, a simple or technical assault can satisfy this element of the offence. For example, holding a victim’s arm while taking money satisfies the definition of robbery pursuant to s343(a): R v CD, 2005 SCC 78 at para 32.

     

  • Whether the robbery is perpetrated by way of actual force or the threat of force, for the purpose of s343(a) for force or threat of force must occur before or contemporaneous to the theft and not after it: R v McKay, 2014 SKCA 19, R v Jean, 2012 BCCA 448 at para 26; R v Newell, 2007 NLCA 9 at para 32.

(b) steals from any person and, at the time he steals or immediately before or immediately thereafter, wounds, beats, strikes or uses any personal violence to that person;

 

Annotations | French

  • To satisfy the ‘personal violence’ requirement in s343(b) “something more than a mere technical assault is required”: R v Oakley, 1986 CanLII 4744 (Ont CA); R v CD, 2005 SCC 78 at para 32.

     

  • For an accused person to be found guilty of robbing someone under s 343(b), violence must have been inflicted upon the victim at a time immediately proximate to the time of the theft, whether immediately preceding or following the theft. “There is no requirement that the violence must exactly accompany the theft”: R v Lieberman, 1970 CanLII 393 (Ont Ca) at para 32; R v Newell, 2007 NLCA 9 at para 25; R v Crabe, 1993 CanLII 14715 (BCCA) at para 11; R v Dubroy-Clement, 2021 ABQB 418 at para 119.

(c) assaults any person with intent to steal from him; or

 

Annotations | French

  • For the offence of robbery to be completed under s343(c) the violence contemplated is no mere that a “mere assault.”: R v Chiang, 1999 BCCA 503 at para 11

     

  • Moreover, “so long at the intention to steal is present, the Crown need not prove actual theft in order to prove a charge of robbery: R v Allen, 2000 CanLII 16954 (Ont CA) at a para 3;R v Summerfield, [2008] OJ No 1877 (SCJ) at para. 32; R** v Swaby, [2008] OJ No 5420 (SCJ) at para 7**.

(d) steals from any person while armed with an offensive weapon or imitation thereof.

 

Annotations | French

  • It is not an essential element of the offence of robbery contrary to s343(d) that the accused used a firearm. “Rather, s. 343(d) refers to being “armed” with an offensive weapon” which may include a firearm: R v Watson, 2008 ONCA 614 at para 24.

     

  • A person is armed with an offensive weapon if they are “equipped with it”, acquire it or if they “become possessed of some instrument which is either a weapon or an imitation weapon: R v Sloan, 1974 CanLII 1501 (BCCA).

     

  • Using your own finger in imitation or simulation of an offensive weapon does not constitute an offensive weapon for the purpose of s343(d): R v Sloan, 1974 CanLII 1501 (BCCA).*
In Tags