Written by: Averroes
(1.0) Introduction:
Robbery, what comes into our minds?
For most people, they think that it is stealing something from someone else or a group of people going to the bank to rob with their shotguns. Well, we are actually on point!
Though, there is a difference between theft and robbery. Moreover, to prove that there is robbery, we need to prove that there is theft as well!
In simplest terms, theft is taking something without the victim knowing while robbery is we are actually stealing something right in front of their eyes and actually threatening them in a way.
Personally for me, when I think of robbery, I think about Superman losing his underwear because of robbery. Can we actually rob from Superman, because in order for there to be robbery, the victim must have felt fear of death or hurt. Superman is kinda invincible and that would not be stealing right? How can he feel afraid, a knife stab can't pierce him, let alone a gunshot.
Also, I just found out that it does not matter, what kind of offensive weapon we use, as long as the item can instill fear, it is technically an 'offensive weapon'. So, a spoon can actually be offensive too.
(1.1) Latest Legal Development
First and foremost, we shall discuss what are the provisions for robbery and the latest trends on this law.
This may be viewed as in the Suhaimi bin Hashim v Public Prosecutor [2021] MLJU 1845, whereby at the Sessions Court, the appellant pleaded guilty and was convicted of two accounts of armed robbery and three counts of armed gang-robbery.
In total, he received 40 years of imprisonment. He did not pursue his appeal on the five sentences nor the 15 strokes of whipping. However, he did file five separate appeals and reduce each of them for 4 years, which would be a cumulative total of 20 years.
In this case, it laid down the difference between 'armed robbery' and 'gang-robbery'.
Robbery is defined as under section 390 of the PC, where there is either theft or extortion, voluntarily causes death, hurt or wrongful restraint and that extortion is robbery is when the they are in the presence of the person and put them in fear and fear of instant death, hurt or wrongful restraint so as to deliver up the thing extorted.
We can therefore simply lay out the elements within such provision as follows;
(i) Theft of Extortion
(PP v Chia Poh Yee [1992] 2 SLR 804, for theft to amount to robbery, any force or threat of force used in the course of theft must be for the purpose of committing theft or carrying away the property obtained from theft).
Theft is not robbery yet, because theft itself as provided in Wong Kon Poh v New India Assurance Co Ltd [1970] 2 MLJ 131, as per Yong J observed that theft is the felonious taking of another person's articles and goods without his knowledge and consent.
However, for robbery it is done in their presence and against their will, as the theft is committed surreptitiously. Hence, theft and robbery is not synonymous.
(ii) Voluntarily causes death, hurt or wrongful restraint
In the event of extortion
(i) Fear of instant death, hurt or wrongful restraint
(ii) Deliver up the thing extorted
The case law definition of robbery is also found as under the case of Karali Prasad Dutta v The East India Railway Co AIR 1928 (Cal) 498, whereby it is the felonious taking from the person of another or in his presence against his will, by violence or putting him in fear.
Briefly speaking, as in Ratanlal's and Dhirajlal's Law of Crimes Vol 2 (24th Edn, 1998) p 1890, the stark difference between robbery in contrast to theft or extortion is the presence of imminent fear of violence.
Section 390 of PC is then read with section 392 of the PC for punishment on robbery that is;
"Shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to fourteen years, and he shall also be liable to fine or to whipping."
Section 395 of the PC for punishment on gang-robbery then reads;
"Shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to twenty years, and shall also be liable to whipping."
Lastly, section 397 of the PC provides punishment for robbery when armed or with attempt to cause death or grievous hurt as;
"If at time of committing or attempting to commit robbery, offender is armed with or uses any deadly weapon, or causes grievous hurt to any person, or attempts to cause death or grievous hurt... shall be whipped, in addition to any other punishment liable under any section of this code."
The court held that the appellant clearly planned the timing and target of his criminal acts. Bear in mind that the fear and trauma that the appellant inflicted upon his victims whilst armed in the early hours of the morning and the concerned members of the public that are frequenting convenience stores.
All the five respective appeals were dismissed and the judgment is to be treated as the judgement for all his five appeals.
(2.0) Binding Precedents:
One of the earliest landmark cases were in Deputy Public Prosecutor v Salamat [1946] 1 MLJ 155 whereby the respondent was charged with carrying an offensive weapon, a knife. He pleaded guilty and fined $30 or 1 month's rigorous imprisonment on default.
The learned District Judge found that he was carrying an ordinary vegetable knife which was a tool of his trade. He had a knife concealed on his person at 12.10am in Geylang Serai, where there was an affray between the Malays and Dutch soldiers and civilians.
Court held that, whether a weapon is offensive or not is a question of fact depending on the circumstances of each particular case and that there was evidence in this case that the respondent was carrying an offensive weapon.
Many things such as razors, parangs and pick handles have their legitimate and pacific uses but circumstances may show that that was not the use which the accused had in mind at the material time. For instance, where a man is found prowling round at night with a razor concealed in his sock or a parang about his person.
This case adopted such standpoint as in James Johnson (1822) Russ & Ry 493, where the accused used a common walking stick and the Judge directed the jury that if the accused used the stick for the purpose of attacking and effecting a robbery, it is considered as an offensive weapon. This is the correct view.
In Lee Waikam v Public Prosecutor [1976] 2 MLJ 19, the appellant and another accused were charged for armed robbery under section 392 and 397 of the PC. The appellant and the accused pleaded guilty and were convicted.
However, there was no proof to indicate who held the knife during the robbery among the two of them. The first accused was 6 to 8 months older than the other accused who was only 17 years and 6 months who was sent to Henry Gurney Boys School.
Court held that, section 34 of the PC should also apply to section 392, read together with 397 of the PC and other offences.
In the Supreme Court case of Jamali bin Adnan v Public Prosecutor [1986] 1 MLJ 162, the facts were that the appellant were convicted and sentenced in the Sessions Court on four charges of robbery with a deadly weapon to wit a revolver.
The appellants had led the police to two places where they recovered two revolvers, several ammunition rounds and. The appellants pleaded guilty to all the four charges and the President of the Sessions Court of Johor Bahru passed the sentences against them with imprisonment and strokes of rotan. They did not appeal to the High Court against the sentences.
The court held that the charges for armed robbery under section 392 of PC and and punishable under section 397 of the PC were triable in the Sessions Court. The appellant had no hesitation in pleading guilty to all the four charges of robbery with a deadly weapon when he appeared before the Sessions Court at Johor Bahru.
(3.0) Conclusion
To conclude, stay away from robbery and theft. Maybe you can, just rob superman.... if you actually can do that, goodluck!
In all honesty, robbery is a serious offence, people have been whipped by the rotan and imprisoned their lifetime just because of it. According to one caselaw, they even mention that the average life span of a Malaysian male is 70 years and 75 for females.
Those sentenced for 40 years and above do not stand a chance to see the outside world and the changes that have come to society and would regret their entire lives just to be isolated inside a secluded cell and a boring-mediocre life of the same routine, waking up, maybe do physical activities, spiritual, and go back to sleep without upgrading and reaching their potentials life.
Comments
Post a Comment