Armed Robbery in Victoria

In this essay, I am going to analyze armed robbery as a type of criminal act in the state of Victoria, Australia.

Definition of Armed Robbery in the State of Victoria

Under the Crimes Act 1958 Section 75A, armed robbery is defined as an offender committing robbery and being armed at that time with a firearm, imitation firearm, offensive weapon, explosive or imitation explosive. There are currently three main typologies of armed robbery offenders. These are amateurs, intermediates and professional offenders.

Number of Armed Robberies Taking Place in Victoria

In 2006, males aged 29-30 constituted 95 percent of offenders involved in armed robbery incidents at ‘banking and financial locations’. Australia is yet to experience high numbers of CIT (cash-in-transit) heists, ramming or explosive attacks which occur more commonly in South Africa. Since 1998, there has been a downward trend in the frequency of armed bank robberies, as the offenders are less likely to plan for their attacks (for example, disguises).

Those Who Commit Armed Robbery

The types of offenders who typically commit CIT armed robbery are professional offenders who have a tendency to plan the offence, study their target and carry high-powered weaponry. They tend to operate in gangs and injure a higher proportion of victims in the course of the hold-up.

In the 1990s, the number of known victims of armed robberies in Australia increased from around 5,000 per year to a peak of over 11,000 in 2001. Between 2001 and 2005 the number dropped steadily to around 6,000 (ABS 2006). It is unlikely that these statistics represent the full extent of armed robbery in this country, as they reflect offences only reported to and recorded by police. The motivation to offend is primarily about funding a specific lifestyle, particularly one fuelled by illicit drugs. For a small group of offenders, the motivation to commit armed robbery appears to be more about earning a regular (illicit) income, a means to pay bills and support a family. In Australia, the highest rate of armed robbery occurs due to the offenders’ addiction to illicit drugs. Researchers have long recognised that successful armed robbers are those who are risk-takers. Hence, the theory of edgework may apply well when considering the motivations behind some armed robbers.

Process of Сonviction for Armed Robbery by the Courts of Victoria and/or Australia

Increased crime prevention strategies have resulted in fewer opportunities for crimes to occur. There have been reductions in regional and metropolitan bank branches and bank security hardening, such as through the use of protective screens, more secure safes and limiting the amount of cash held by tellers. Aggravated robbery can incur a maximum penalty of 20-25 years imprisonment.

Street Robbery Victimization Trend: Case Study of Bole Sub-city, Addis Ababa

1. Statement of the problem

Crime is a societal problem because it involves society as a system of groups and institutions. Crime generates substantial costs to society at individual, community, and national levels. In the Addis Ababa Bole sub-city, more than 778 street robbers were committed in 2010, resulting in approximately 10 million in economic losses to the victims and 150 million in government expenditures on police protection, judicial and legal activities, and corrections (bole sub-city crime report 2010). Root causes of crime like poverty, poor educational background, unemployment, and rural-urban migration, drug substance abuse, and ghettos’ way of life are regarded as contributing factors of crimes (Weather burn, 2011 Bharadwaj, 2014). In these days serious crimes in Addis Ababa are affecting all rounded of life including psychological, physiological, and socioeconomic, the victims and the perpetrators themselves for which they are paying a price in relation to the issues at hand.

The purpose of this section is to show the gap of research and to give answer for the question of what has been done on crime and related issues in Ethiopia. In Ethiopia, street robbery is a problem that needs to be studied with the objective of assessing the nature of victimization trend. Usually, public claims are heard about different crime incidences like crime against person.

Addis Ababa as a capital city of the country where millions people are moving, repositioning and residing in it with diverge backgrounds. Life for the residents in Addis Ababa is not as easy task as it is expected and planned thus the residents are facing with diverse psychosocial and socioeconomic born problems like crimes. Practices have shown that crimes particularly street robbery is highly and destructively affecting urban activate and admittedly, these crimes touch every aspect of life in the city.

The purpose of this research is to make clear and gives insight for, the residents, policymakers, academicals, or any readers in relation to the subject matter at study. Since there are only small studies in Ethiopia in relation to crime, however; none of these studies were provided a profound analysis and there are still several, critical and core issues and questions unanswered. For instance, Nega & Berhanu (2014) have carried out a brief article under the caption of “Crime Situations and Reaction of Criminal Justice System in Oromia, Ethiopia.” we failed to address Bole sub-city, Addis Ababa. In their study they have to address street robbery victimization trend in Bole sub-city, Addis Ababa is analyzed.

Meti (2016) on the other hand claimed and identified issues on crime in her thesis. This researcher has concluded that socioeconomic problems are the prime causes for crime and assess the cause of crime. She failed to address street robbery victimization trend and their impacts. The researcher is also seen these crimes from socioeconomic perspective but did not take into account victimization trend perspective. In general the above researchers have doing well in relation the nature, type, and consequences of crimes but still, their assessment and findings were not adequate and exhaustive to address Bole sub-city.

Alongside, therewith it would be going through to analyze the street robbery crimes in relation to trends, prevalence and consequence will be addressed appropriately. The focus of this mini-research will be street robbery; having been identified as important crime types that remain under-researched in relation to the crime drop (and thus forming phase three of the wider research agenda). Following vehicle crime and residential burglary, theft was viewed as the next logical acquisitive crime choice for analysis. In addition, unlike police recorded crime, to the author’s knowledge, robberies have not previously been explored to this level. In addition to the increased availability of technology and its potential impact on subsequent crime rates, the author hypothesizes that victims of robbery are likely to be predominantly young(16-24), single, professional males with high incomes who more frequently engage in night-time activities away from the home. The study has addressed and explored the changing nature of Street robbery victimization trends in Bole sub-city Addis Ababa, Ethiopia, over the study period of July 2010 to August 2011 E.C. Monthly data obtained from Addis Ababa Police Commission for a total of 12 months will be used.

2. General Objective

The general objective of this mini-research to explore the nature of street robbery victimization trend in Bole sub-city, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia

2.1. Specific Objective

  • To examine both a desirable item and ‘suitable’ victim of street Robbery.
  • To identify the circumstances render encounters with ‘motivated offenders’ less likely to result in the robbery of an item?
  • To identify different types of street robbery attacks (confrontations, blitzes, cons, or snatch-thefts) reported in circumstances, times, types of victims, or locations.

2.1.2. Research question

  1. What constitutes both a desirable item and ‘suitable’ victim of street Robbery and why?
  2. What circumstances render encounters with ‘motivated offenders’ less likely to result in the robbery of an item?
  3. Are there different types of street robbery attacks (confrontations, blitzes, cons, or snatch-thefts) reported in your jurisdiction? Do these types of attacks vary by circumstances, times, types of victims, or locations?

3. Significance of the Study

This study has dig out the changing nature of street robbery of personal property victimization trend. It is also very important that showing the rigorousness of consequences to the society and how to protect offenders before committing the criminal acts. Moreover, the findings of this study will helped policymakers and social work practitioners in the area of explore the changing nature of street robbery of personal property and also it needs expanding the knowledge prospect in social work, and it has serves as a reference for further studies of the related topics.

5. Research Approach

This section deals with the methodological approaches that have been used in the research. The main topics extensively dealt in this section are the research design, methods of data collection, selection of participants, selection criteria, sampling techniques, data analysis, and ethical considerations through the entire study.

6.1 Research design

The design of this study is convergent parallel mixed methods. Qualitative and quantitative research helps to obtain to triangulation allows one to identify aspects of a phenomenon more accurately by approaching it from different vantage points using different methods and techniques. Therefore, this approach will be help to gain in breadth and depth of understanding and corroboration, while offsetting the weaknesses inherent to using each approach by itself taking Bole sub-city, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia as a case the changing nature of robbery of personal property victimization trend design has been apply to explore the case.

1.4 study area

Addis Ababa is the capital city of Ethiopia. She was founded in the 19th-century Ethiopian king Emperor Menelik II and his wife Empress Taitu in 1887. In 2003, the Charter of Addis Ababa City Government, Proclamation No. 311/2003, divided the city into ten parts and structured in sub-cities for the purpose of realizing good governance and administration.. It has a total population of 308,714 (2007 censes). It was situated in the east of Addis Ababa and bounded by Akaki Kaliti sub-city in the south, Yeka sub city in the north and Kirkos sub-city in the west, and Oromiya/ Yerare Mountain in the east. Bole sub-city police department is the focus of this paper due to the fact that there are evidences that indicate the prevalence of crime of Receipt of stolen goods; Larceny (Theft); Murder, Forgery; Shoplifting, Robbery; attempted Homicide; Pickpocket; Burglary; Assault and Injury; and Various social-related crimes committed in this sub-city. The focus of this mini-research street robbery of personal property victimization trends in Bole sub-city.

3.3. Target population

Population is a group of individuals who have one or more characteristics in common (Kothari, 2005). The target population for this study will victim of street robbery, offender, police officers, and community members found in Bole sub-city area police department.

3.3.3. Sampling techniques

According to Catherine, (2009) the correct sample size in a study is dependent on the nature of the population and the purpose of the study. In order to determine the sample size of each unit; among probability sampling stratified and then simple random sampling will be used. By these sampling techniques, the population will stratify into a number of non-overlapping sub-populations or strata and sample items will be selected randomly from each stratum. The researcher will used the following sample determination table to determine the representative sample size which was developed by Carvalho; 10% of large populations and 20% of small populations as minimum (Gay, 2009). Since the population of the study is 67, the researcher believed that, it can be treated as small population; and, the researcher will take 20% of the total population to increase reliability of the study. Therefore, an adequate sample of Bole sub-city victim of street robbery, offender, police officer and community 20 %( 67) is 20 victim of street robbery, offender, police officer and community member. Therefore, since Bole-sub-city police the researcher will take each unit as stratum and select a sample from each stratum depend on population size.

4. Source of data

The researcher will use primary and secondary source of data. This source of Data includes information from respondents through questionnaire, and interview, which provide original information to the study. Therefore, for the purpose of this study the researcher will be used only questionnaire and interview from primary source and document review from secondary source.

3.4.1. Primary source of data

  • Questionnaire

Questionnaires are the major instrument that was used in data collection. According to Nachmias (1992), the foundation of all questionnaires is the question. The questions must translate research objectives into questions; answers to such questions will provide the data. In this mini research both closed and open ended questionnaires will be used in the data collection process from selecting victim of street robbery, offender, police officer and community members. Therefore, the researcher will distribute and collecting questionnaire from December 26-30, 2012 E.C for 20 respondents from (67) (among them 4 police officers, 6 respondent of street robbery victim, including those who are participating in the interview, 6 respondent of street robbery offender and 4 community members will be selected).

  • ·Interview

The interview method of collecting data involves presentation of oral (verbal) stimuli and reply in terms of oral (verbal) responses Schedule According to Nyamongo (2001). Interviews help the participant to understand the purpose of the study and its importance. This method can be use through personal interviews. The semi-structured interview method will be used to collect data. The researcher will prepared interview guide line in English language and all Interview guide line will be translated by language professional from English to Amharic. Therefore, the researcher will interview from December 26-30, 2012 E.C for seven participants from (67) (among them 2 police officers, 2 participants of street robbery victim, including those who are participated in the interview, 2 participants of street robbery offender and 1 participant community members be selected).

3.4.2. Secondary Data

3.4.2.1. Documentary review

These sources of data provide a secondary data, which is available in a form that can be checked. For the purpose of this study secondary data will be collected from annual reports and official documents of Bole sub-city police department. Information from these documents will be help the researcher to link information obtains from the interviews.

3.5. Data collection procedure

To collect data from the participants the researcher will prepare the guidelines for interview, and questionnaire. The interview guideline will have around 10 semi-structured questions, for victim of street robbery, offenders, police officers, and community members and then these questions will be translated to Amharic language. The researcher will get support letter from Ethiopian Police University College by having these the support letter will be given to the police department managers and get permission then the next step will be to identify and inform the participants about the purpose of the research and what expect from them. The last but not the least procedure will researcher collecting information from participants who are willing to respond.

3.6. Method of data analysis

In this mini-research, a convergent parallel mixed-methods study design will be used to collect, analyze and interpret quantitative and qualitative data the obtain data will be organize as per research questions analyzing mainly through concurrent triangulation method. This strategy usually integrates the results of the two methods during the interpretation phase. This interpretation can either not the convergence of the findings as a way to strengthen the knowledge claims of the study or explain any lack of convergence that may result (Creswell, 2003). According to the nature of data obtain and the data obtain from questionnaire will be edit, categorize, arrange and analyze through quantitative descriptive statistical method especially percentage is applying while those data collected from interviews and open-ended questions will be analyzed qualitatively through thematic analysis method mainly explanations and description of data and information based on the supplementary evidence in addition to the quantitative one.

3.7. Ethical considerations

Researchers have an obligation to respect the rights and desires of the participants. Before we began data distribution, the researcher informed the participants’ voluntariness and got their consent. The researcher made awareness of the participants, benefits, procedures of the study and had their privacy respected. Hence: All respondents were selected based on their consent: All issues concerning the respondents were based on confidentiality and we told the truth that the research is conducted for academic purpose. The study was conducted based on respecting all participants irrespective of their gender and age. Therefore, this study was conducted based on considering all necessary research ethics.

Critical Evaluation of the Arguments Regarding Level of Force and Fair Labelling Associated with Offence of Robbery

In the present society, robbery is evident as a broad crime and unusual offence that combines different wrongs, such as offences in against a person and against the property. It is broad due to the non-distinguishing of distinct levels of force which is applied against a person. This reveals that there is no differentiation in the commitment of offence has been provided for different acts. The current definition in regard to robbery conflicts is found not aligned with the fair labelling principle, which aims at ensuring that crimes should be defined on the basis of the reflection of severity and wrongfulness. In this context, the present paper aims at evaluating the offence of robbery in detail and examining the level of force which is required for someone to be convicted for this offence In order to evaluate it, the views presented by Garry Betts in the article Robbery and the principles of fair labelling which was published in 2019, have been taken in the paper. Using this, a critical evaluation of the concept of force and validity of fair labelling notion has been made in the paper. Based on this, a conclusion with respect to a statement in support/agree or against views have been made in the paper.

Identification of Issues

The main issue discussed in the article is associated with the need for fair labelling while convicting an individual with the offence of robbery. It has been argued that the main focus while convicting a person of robbery should be to analyse the type of wrongdoing committed by him/her on the basis of, which level of force needs to be used. The current issues associated with robbery involve lack in distinguishing the kinds of offending and wrongdoing and properly labelling the robberies to demonstrate the seriousness and nature of criminal behaviour. In general robbery, primary constitutes two unlawful acts including committing theft and utilisation of force during a solitary venture or transaction. It basically is a mixture of properly offence along with committing an offence against an individual. However, its maximum penalty, which is of life imprisonment is more than majority of the punishments that are given to individuals for committing constituent offences of assault and theft. The key reason that the maximum penalty is greater for robbery in comparison to theft is still unknown even though the law is mainly focused on preventing thefts in the end. The basic concern as expressed in the article is that fair labelling of robberies is still not present in the contemporary era as a result of, which an individual who would commit robbery without any force is not considered guilty as, which is quite unconvincing since theft can be committed without the use of force. This further raises questions regarding the definition of robbery because of the lack of fair treatment in case of different robberies clearly indicates that it is more than merely an assault or a theft.

On the other side, the article has also highlighted the legal issues that arise when a person who has been a victim of a robbery is not offered justice just because the crime did not involve use of force. On the contrary, the person who has committed the offence of robbery but with the use of slight force or nudge is likely to be sentenced for life imprisonment as it is the maximum sentence for the robberies involving force. This level of difference clearly demonstrates that not only there is a need for fair labelling, but the law should decide the level of punishments according to the offence that is committed not always in regard to the level of force. It has further been argued that the narrowly labelled offences promote its level of seriousness to the public as well as the offender and also tend to raise a question mark in front of the court regarding their sentencing powers with regard to the seriousness of the criminal conduct.

The issue of unfair labelling in terms of robbery can result in misinterpretation among the public regarding the nature and seriousness of the lawbreaker’s conduct, and this can further make people believe that the conduct was much more severe than it actually was. The legal issues that have emerged in contemporary society with regard to robberies have majorly involved unfair labelling and considering only the offender’s perspective while labelling the wrongdoing. It has been highlighted in the article that unfair labelling can largely impact both the victim and offenders especially the latter who can get shunned by the society for committing a minor robbery that resulted in his/ her defamation. Fair labelling needs more focus by the law as it can help in ensuring that conduct and its nature is taken seriously, and justified conviction is given to every individual that commits the offence of robbery. Therefore, the article has mainly presented the legal issues that can be encountered or faced by people when the principle of fair labelling and different concepts of force are not taken into consideration by the law while convicting an offender of robbery.

Critical Analysis of the Risks of Robbery

Situational or Case Facts Critical Analysis

Almost the whole town had gone to spectate the game – a once-a-year “grudge match” in which the best young footballers in Melville were pitched against their adversaries in neighboring Santa Georgia. Santa Georgia almost always wins. Comprehensive risk analysis may have identified this situation, a known event and foreseeable, as one that may increase exposure to the risk of robbery.

The situation, in which the bulk of law enforcement in Melville is likely to be occupied with the game and the relative isolation and vulnerability of the petrol station during this time, provides an opportunity to exploit for the adversary. There was also intelligence regard a recent spate of robberies in the area, which would of increased the accuracy of the likelihood analysis.

If this situation, or one similar to it, had been identified during the risk analysis process a range of control measures and mitigations could have been employed to reduce the exposure to risk. (U12, P21)

Just 45 minutes to go until the petrol station closes, and time now to begin counting the cash in the register. Samira had begun to clear a space on the counter Conducting cash handling in an open space creates an additional and completely avoidable exposure to risk.

Good practice dictates that cash should be counted in secure areas (U12, P28); primarily this is to benefit from defense in depth (U5, P34) by adding an additional layer in which the adversary must traverse (i.e. from the public area through to a secure staff area) and increasing the effort required, but also provides a degree of deterrence if a watching adversary witnesses the fact there is a formal procedure to defeat in order to successfully commit the robbery; thus increasing the perceived risk. Both elements are considerations of Situational Crime Prevention (U2, P30).

An elderly couple were chatting in the corner of the store as they looked through the chill cabinet for a microwavable meal. In preparing to begin the store closure procedures whilst customers were in the store, Samira has created a situation where she can be and should expect to be, distracted by other customers.

Best Practice states that during the store closure procedures, staff should work in pairs and increase their vigilance during this time, furthermore entrances and exits should be secured during this process (WorkSafeBC, U12, P27).

A systematic or process-led method to closing the store would of enabled Maria and Samira to develop better situational awareness and by implementing control measures (i.e. locking the doors) they could have positioned themselves to better deter a robbery.

From in between the many posters advertising special offers that adorned the window next to the cash register The location in which Samira has chosen to conduct her cash handling suffers from poor natural surveillance, in the context of CPTED (U12, P23), and the cluttered window works to the robbers’ advantage (U12, P23).

A cluttered window provides a degree of cover for a robber, for instance; he can use the cover of cluttered posters on a window to keep his weapon below the poster line, to passing traffic it would appear as though the robber is simply a customer in the store. VendHQ (https://www.vendhq.com/blog/prevent-handle-robberies-theft-retail/) recommends this approach as a means of deterrence.

Taking advantage of better natural surveillance, e.g. by removing the posters around the till, would also increase the feeling of safety for legitimate users (U2, P26) along with the perceived increase exposure of detection to the robber. Given the petrol station’s position on a road, positive natural surveillance would have also enabled better casual surveillance.

Samira had seen a Dark blue sedan that had parked up in the shadows of the forecourt, away from the pumps. It was difficult to make out the vehicle exactly as there were a lot of camping gas canisters stacked up outside. The petrol station is suffering from poor external landscaping, and potentially poor lighting, where the camping canisters have provided an ample cover for the robber to wait and observe the petrol station with a degree of obscurity.

Good practice dictates that pile of stores should be avoided (U12, P23), again in support of natural surveillance, not only does this allow for greater vigilance and increase the chances of detection in the very early stages of a robbery; it can also contribute to a sense natural territorial reinforcement and the projection to the adversary of a feeling that he is not in a permissive area to conduct his robbery – that the area is not his to control(U2, P27).

She had expressed these concerns to her more experienced colleague Maria

Maria resolved to have a cursory glance at the car from a distance, as she headed through the staffroom towards the back door to smoke a quick cigarette.

Maria, as the more experienced member of staff, should have been trained on how to recognize suspicious behavior (U12, P25). If so she would have immediately identified that the position of the vehicle and the time (so close to closing) as a recognized indicator of a possible, impending robbery.

Maria did make a cursory glance at the car, however, this seems to evidence the lack of clear procedures in place (U12, P26, P27) to respond to such concerns.

A simple procedure, with subsequent training, would have enabled Maria to recognize the indicators and take immediate action to report her concerns and take immediate action to prevent the individual entering the store.

Almost as soon as Maria had left the sales area, a young male alighted from the vehicle and ran toward the glass entrance door of the petrol station. This was not typical behavior for a customer, reinforced by the fact that he was wearing a long-sleeved top and a woolen hat. It is likely the attacker has chosen this point to attack due to the fact that Maria had left the main sales area and left Samira alone, contrary to best practice for closing procedures (U12, P27).

At this point, with the male running, Samira had a limited opportunity to trigger either a panic alarm or a rapid locking mechanism for the door (if equipped) and prevented the male from entering the store.

Samira wanted to scream as he rushed through the door, pulling out a gun, shouted to the elderly couple to lie down on the floor, and pulled down the hat over his face to form a balaclava. Instead, she froze, steadying herself on the lottery ticket dispenser as her vision began to blur and her heart felt as if it would burst out of her chest Whilst the fear of an actual armed robbery is hard to simulate, enhanced training on immediate actions to be taken would have equipped Samira with a better understanding of what to expect and what to do in such a situation. I.e. deep breathing (U12, P29)

Perhaps the old man would creep up from the darker depths of the store and disable the robber from behind?” she thought. “Could she catch the old man’s attention?”’ During a robbery in progress, it is vital to prevent a customer intervening or in fact any intervention. The safest way to handle a robbery in progress is to play it safe (U12, P29) and avoid resisting.

Had the old man snuck up on the robber, it would have most likely led to a serious yet unavoidable escalation in the robbery, resulting in injury or worse. It is recommended that the intention of staff should be to get the attacker off the premises as quickly as possible (U12, P30), and encouraging any intervention, not least from a customer, is both reckless and is likely to complicate the situation further.

She desperately needed this job and feared she would be sacked if she just handed over all of the day’s takings, so she started to plead: “Please don’t do this. I need this job. You don’t need to do this, do you? Why are you doing this? Just leave and I’ll say nothing.” By pleading with the robber, Samira has attempted to convince the robber not to carry out his act. The priority in this situation is to remove the robber off the premises as quickly as possible (U12, P30) and avoid speaking out of turn, speaking only when spoken to.

In pleading with the robber, Samira has added a further emotional element into an already intense situation and lost any sense of calm she may have previously displayed, which in turn may make the attacker feel he is losing control of the situation, requiring a reaction.

“We don’t have much cash anyway,” she lied, “my colleague has just taken it to the bank.” Good practice states that in an active robbery situation, lying or bluffing is likely to be unsuccessful as the robber will be more experienced (U12, P30) in this high-pressure situation.

It should be assumed the robber has done his homework in pre-robbery surveillance, in this case, the robber was sat outside in his vehicle for a period, in which he would of ascertained that there would be enough cash in the petrol station to make robbery worthwhile and did not witness her colleague taking the money to the bank.

The robber, as if expecting such a response, went crazy, pointed the gun at Samira’s head, and began to count down “5….4…3 …” “OK, there is some but I don’t think it is much.” She bent down under the counter and reached for the key to open the register, initially dropping it out of her shaking hand and quickly bending down to pick it up. Her life had flashed before her as the robber began to countdown again, and she didn’t dare say another word. Tears welled up in her eyes and her stomach was in knots; she wasn’t even sure her legs had the strength to lift her back up. In a robbery situation, it is vital to remain calm and avoid creating surprises for the robber. Movement may be misinterpreted for threatening behavior, risking a reaction from the robber. (U12,P30)

Samira should of also asked for permission to reach down to get the key from the floor, in this case, the robber could have misinterpreted the act as reaching for a weapon, for example, risking a potentially catastrophic misunderstanding.

Samira glanced nervously over to the staffroom door, hoping Maria was on the other side calling the police on her cell phone

She closed the back door and went back into the store through the staff entrance, picking up a broom on the way. Startled as Maria strode back into the sales area ready to clean up, the robber swung round and his finger instinctively tightened around the trigger. The force of the bullet smashing into Maria’s chest knocked her backward, and she collapsed into a large advertising hoarding. Best practice in active robbery situations recommends informing the robber of anyone else in the facility, in order to prevent any surprises or startling the robber. (U12,P30).

In this case, that is precisely what happened, with Samira not informing the robber of Marias’ presence. Subsequently, in the high pressured environment of an active robbery, he has become startled and discharged his firearm, shooting Maria. This could have been potentially avoided had Samira informed him of another staff member’s presence.

Sobbing for mercy, a terrified Samira opened the cash register and snatched at the notes from the till. There was a locked safe under the counter for the bigger notes and she reached into her pocket for the keys to that also Indicating there is another area of cash storage or a safe, when it is not apparent the robber is aware of their existence serves two adverse purposes; 1 it keeps the robber on the premises for longer and 2 increases the loss caused by the robbery.

Best practice states that employees should not look towards areas of cash storage or safes (U12, P30) and be led by the attackers’ demands.

There was a silent alarm button next to the under-counter safe, and her boss had told her that she should press it if ever a robbery occurred. Activating the alarm at this juncture would be a dangerous move, if the alarm when activated, and although ‘silent’, has some form of confirmatory response such as a vibration or an external flashing light, then this may alert the robber. Alternatively, if the robber sees Samira reaching to press something, again a sudden or unexpected movement, he may react adversely.

Best practice dictates that alarm activation and securing of the store should only take place after the robber has left (U12, P31) for this reason.

Looking into the robber’s piercing, cold eyes, she pleaded with him to be allowed to count the cash first. In staring at the robber Samira runs the risk of further aggravating him (U12,P30). At this point, and with someone already shot and the violence threshold already breached, the robber is likely to become more irrational and focus on getting out of the store with the cash with haste.

This may also be misconstrued by the attacker as a stalling tactic, assuming she had activated an alarm (U12, P30).

“My boss will kill me if he doesn’t know how much has been taken.” This statement speaks of the organizational culture at the petrol station; as the fundamental principle is that cash and valuables can be replaced, people cannot (U12, P29).

Samira’s primary concern should be dealing with the active situation and bring it to a conclusion, in order to be able to assist Maria who is critically wounded. Better training and management communication would allow Samira to be better focused during a robbery and dismiss any concerns about the loss of cash or property.

He was aware that the premises were covered by CCTV, and he demanded the recorder. Samira explained that it was in the staffroom. By using an onsite CCTV recording system, staff are placed at a higher risk, as demonstrated in this example (U12, P24). The time the robber has to stay in the location in order to complete his aims is extended and prolongs staff and customer exposure to potential harm.

By transmitting CCTV images off-site, to a cloud-based storage medium for example (U9, P16), evidence can be preserved for investigation and staff members, who cannot hand over or destroy an intangible piece of data, are subsequently put at lower risk.

The robber went over to the old man, who was prostrate and trembling by the coffee machine and clutching the hand of his wife. Pointing the gun at the old man’s head the robber made clear to Samira the consequences of not coming back out of the staffroom with the recorder. Once out of sight, Samira ran toward the back door, opened it, and ran for what seemed like an eternity. With customers in the store and facing a real and known threat to life (e.g. the firearm pointed at the customer’s head), Samira should have focused on carrying out the robbers’ instructions and bringing the robbery to a conclusion without further injuries.

As mentioned earlier the fundamental principle in an armed robbery is that cash and property can be replaced, people cannot. This should have been Samira’s primary concern and there is no doubt she, as a representative of the company, has a duty of care to her customers. (U12, P29)

By running, Samira has knowingly put lives at risk, not least of her colleague who is lying injured with gunshot wounds. This is likely to further agitate the robber who at this point may have resigned to the fact that he cannot remove or destroy CCTV footage may seek to kill or injure the witnesses in the store in order to obscure his tracks.

When she felt she could run no further, she hid in a ditch, almost oblivious to the wailing sirens of the police cars as they sped by. She pulled out her cell phone and called her mother, and through sobs and trembles, related the story of what had happened. Her mother warned her of the repercussions of being too helpful in identifying the robber, in case he was a gang member. Samira should have focused on the preservation of life and as soon as both safe and possible, should of dialled the local emergency number and alerted the Police. Given the situation of; one staff member seriously wounded and two customers under threat, Samira had a duty to ensure she had done everything possible to provide assistance.

In speaking with her mother, Samira has placed at jeopardy the recollection, which should be provided immediately to the police as a statement (U12, P32). Furthermore, Samira’s mother

Case Study of Malik Taylor Who Was Tried and Convicted of First-degree Robbery

Nature and Stage of the Proceedings

Malik Taylor was tried and convicted of first-degree robbery in the Delaware Superior Court. The defense filed a motion for judgment of acquittal at the close of all evidence; the motion was denied. The defense now appeals arguing (1) that the trial court erred in denying the motion for judgment of acquittal, as there was insufficient evidence to link the defendant to the robbery, and (2) that the trial court erred in denying the motion for judgment of acquittal, as there was insufficient evidence that the defendant displayed what appeared to be a weapon or represented by words or conduct that he possessed a weapon.

Summary of Argument

Robbery in the second degree; class E felony:

  • (a) A person is guilty of robbery in the second degree when, in the course of committing theft, the person uses or threatens the immediate use of force upon another person with intent to: (1) Prevent or overcome resistance to the taking of the property or to the retention thereof immediately after the taking; or (2) compel the owner of the property or another person to deliver up the property or to engage in other conduct which aids in the commission of the theft.
  • (b) In addition to its ordinary meaning, the phrase “in the course of committing theft” includes any act which occurs in an attempt to commit theft or in immediate flight after the attempt or commission of the theft. Del. Code Ann. tit. 11, § 831.

To convict a defendant of robbery in the first degree, the jury must find, beyond a reasonable doubt, that an accused commits the crime of robbery in the second degree and during the commission of that crime displays what appears to be a deadly weapon. Del. Code Ann. tit. 11, § 832(a)(2). To be convicted of possession of a deadly weapon during the commission of a felony, the jury must find, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the defendant commits a felony while in possession of a deadly weapon. Del. Code Ann. tit. 11, § 1447(a).

The State of Delaware will argue (1) that the trial court did not err in denying the motion for judgment of acquittal to Malik Taylor; there was sufficient evidence to link the appellant to the robbery beyond a reasonable doubt because of the jury’s verdict and (2) that the trial court did not err in denying the motion for judgment of acquittal for the reason that there was sufficient evidence beyond a reasonable doubt the appellant displayed what appeared to be a weapon or represented by words or conduct that he possessed a weapon during the course of the robbery to Mr. Evgeni.

  1. Issue #1: The jury agreed on a guilty verdict for, Malik Taylor, of first-degree robbery based on the evidence presented to the Delaware Superior Court.

a. The jury is the sole trier of fact under Delaware law to convict Malik Taylor based on the testimony and evidence presented to the trial court.

Wanamaker v. State, 1995 Del. 659 A.2d 229 (Apr. 3, 1995): A police officer testified that she had been working as an undercover agent targeting a specific apartment building. The officer identified defendant as the man who had sold her marijuana. Defendant testified and denied committing the crime. He claimed it was, mistaken identity, relying on an alibi. The court held that the jury was the sole trier of fact, responsible for determining witness credibility, and resolving conflicts in the testimony. Thus, it was solely in the discretion of the jury to accept one witness’ testimony and disapprove the testimony of other witnesses. The court held that sufficient evidence existed in support of the defendant’s conviction.

Under Delaware law, the jury is the sole trier of fact, responsible for determining witness credibility and resolving conflicts in the testimony. The court granted the State’s motion and affirmed the defendant’s convictions and his sentence. In the present case, the main legal issue on appeal is whether Malik Taylor was actually in fact the individual who committed the robbery to Mr. Evgeni. Based on the testimony and the evidence presented to the trial court, the jury came to the verdict, as sole trier of fact, that Malik Taylor had in fact committed the crime of first-degree robbery. The State of Delaware will argue because it is precedence in Delaware that, it is ultimately up to the jury as to whether Mr. Taylor was the perpetrator and the jury in the Delaware Superior Court has already agreed that it was in fact, Mr. Taylor. In this case, it is up to the appellate judge of the Delaware Supreme Court to decide whether the evidence was sufficient to convict Malik Taylor and remand the case back to the trial court if it is not.

  1. Issue #2: There is sufficient evidence to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the appellant, Malik Taylor, displayed what appeared to be a deadly weapon during the commission of the robbery.

a. Taylor gestured what appeared to be a deadly weapon in his jacket pocket pointed at Evgeni.

Deshields v. State, 706 A.2d 502 (Del. 1998): On April 21, 1995, Laura Jackson was working at a store. At 3:30 a.m., a man entered, made a purchase, and left and returned a few minutes later. He told Jackson to go behind the counter and give him the money in the register. When she hesitated, he reached underneath his tee-shirt and belt with his right hand. He then pointed something heavy and bulky at her from under his shirt. Jackson thought he had a gun. Jackson followed his orders and gave him fifty dollars cash. The robber motioned for Jackson to enter a back room near the end of the counter. He gestured for Jackson to stay there until he was gone. The robber left the store. Jackson called the police. Defendant was convicted after jury trial of first-degree robbery and appealed.

Deshields was charged with robbery in the first-degree, alleging that on April 21, 1995, in the course of, committing theft, use the threat of force upon Laura Jackson with intent to overcome resistance to the taking of property and in the course of the commission of that crime displayed what appeared to be a deadly weapon. Defendant did place his hand under his shirt in a manner to make it appear that he possessed a gun, in violation of Title 11, Section [832(a)(2)] of the Delaware Code. According to the State, the circumstances of the second robbery in May illustrated that Deshields tried to convince Jackson he had a weapon by reaching underneath his shirt with his right hand, just as he had done during the first robbery in April.

The Superior Court ruled that the May robbery was admissible to show absence of mistake or an intent on Deshields’ part to convince Jackson, by gesturing, that he had a weapon. This case is directly similar to the present case because of the element of first-degree robbery where the appellant in the commission of a second-degree robbery, “displays what appears to be a deadly weapon.” Del. Code Ann. tit. 11, § 832(a)(2). Malik Taylor, in the course of the robbery, gestured to Mr. Evgeni as if he had a weapon to use the threat of serious harm or death to intimidate Mr. Evgeni and force him to open the door to the area with the cash register for Taylor to have access to the money. This gesture towards what could be interpreted as a deadly weapon to Mr. Evgeni was sufficient to convict Malik Taylor of the crime of first-degree robbery. This is directly similar to the actions made by the appellant, Deshields, toward Ms. Jackson when he had reached underneath his shirt with his right hand, intending to threat Jackson to give her the idea that he had a deadly weapon without showing if he actually did have one. This was sufficient to convict the appellant of first-degree robbery in the state of Delaware and affirmed after appeal.

b. Mr. Evgeni reasonably believed Mr. Taylor had or appeared to have a deadly weapon.

Desmond v. State, 654 A.2d 821 (Del. 1994): Linda Mikolaitis was working at the Tri-State Mall Thriftway on September 7, 1991. At 8:00 p.m., a man inserted a gun through the booth’s window and said ‘this is a hold-up give me your big bills.’ Mikolaitis had never seen a gun before and assumed the man was holding a toy gun, making a joke. However, due to the man’s demeanor and, the gun ‘didn’t look plastic, it looked metal and it had to be real.’, she changed her mind. Mikolaitis handed a large amount of cash from the store safe to the robber. Two other Thriftway employees witnessed the robbery. Michelle Ulmer entered the booth while Mikolaitis was emptying the safe. The robber told her to be quiet and pointed what she believed to be a ‘small silver gun’ at her. She observed the gun from close range. The two women, Ms. Mikolaitis and Ms. Ulmer, later identified Desmond as the robber.

The Supreme Court of Delaware held that possession of a deadly weapon during commission of felony did not constitute double jeopardy, and testimony describing gun used was sufficient to prove that defendant possessed deadly weapon; the trial court judgment was affirmed. The appellant, Desmond, claims that the eyewitness testimony was circumstantial evidence, therefore insufficient “credible evidence” to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he actually possessed a deadly weapon. Thus, the Supreme Court of Delaware should overturn his PDWDCF conviction as a matter of law. “To sustain a conviction for PDWDCF, the State need not recover the weapon involved, nor must the weapon have been fired during the course of the felony. The relevant question is whether, after reviewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt.” Williams v. State, Del.Supr., 539 A.2d 164, 168, cert. denied, 488 U.S. 969, 109 S.Ct. 500, 102 L.Ed.2d 536 (1988). The record reflects that most of the witnesses viewed the weapon at close range and for extended periods of time. The substantial similarity of their detailed descriptions of the weapon lead a rational trier of fact to conclude that what Desmond appeared to possess was, in fact, a deadly weapon.

This is directly related to the present case in the issue of whether Malik Taylor had or appeared to have a deadly weapon when he had committed the robbery from Mr. Evgeni. It does not matter if he actually in fact, had the weapon or not, as long as there is sufficient evidence that Mr. Evgeni reasonably believed Taylor had a weapon and a rational trier of fact found that Taylor appeared to possess a deadly weapon during the robbery of Mr. Evgeni’s store. Even though there is no direct evidence as to whether a deadly weapon was actually shown or not based on the surveillance footage and testimony by Evgeni, the circumstantial evidence presented to the Delaware Superior Court and Mr. Evgeni’s testimony was adequate, as in the case with Desmond, to convict Malik Taylor of first-degree robbery. The State of Delaware will argue that Evgeni reasonably believed that Taylor had a weapon from his actions and this was sufficient to fulfill the element of “appearing to have a deadly weapon” for first-degree robbery in Delaware.

c. Taylor appeared with his conduct to manifest a deadly weapon without showing it to Evgeni.

State v. Muhammad, 2004 Del. Super. 435 (Del., 2004): Defendant, Parris Muhammad, was convicted by a jury on April 11, 2002, of robbery in the first degree, wearing a disguise during a felony, and tampering with physical evidence. These convictions were upheld on appeal. The first issue is, whether there was “sufficient” evidence that Muhammad displayed what appeared to be a deadly weapon. In Walton v. State, 821 A.2d 871 (Del. 2003), the Supreme Court of Delaware reversed a first-degree robbery conviction, holding that a person who handed the bank teller a note saying he had a bomb while holding one hand in his pocket, did not “display what appears to be a deadly weapon” for purposes of the criminal statute. The Walton Majority held that there must be conduct, in addition to the verbal threat, “that could be viewed objectively as ‘displaying what appears to be a deadly weapon.” Muhammad’s crime is distinguishable. In addition to his verbal threat, Muhammad fiddled with something under his shirt. Applying Walton, the Court found that Muhammad’s actions provided an objective manifestation of the weapon he claimed to have and threatened to use against the teller. Thus, there was sufficient evidence to support Muhammad’s conviction of first-degree robbery.

In the present case, Taylor objectively manifested that he had a weapon by gesturing in his jacket pocket pointing at Mr. Evgeni while also simultaneously trying to hit Mr. Evgeni to gain entry into the booth with the cash register. Taylor’s conduct in this scene of events is an objective manifestation of his claim to have a deadly weapon to use the threat of harm or death to force Mr. Evgeni to open the door and cash register for Taylor.

d. Objective manifestation is not necessary to support the guilty verdict for first-degree robbery.

State v. Smith, 2004 Del. Super. 208 (Del. 2004): Defendant, Smith, claimed that the evidence did not establish that he displayed what appeared to be a deadly weapon, as required for a robbery first-degree conviction, of the amended version of Del. Code Ann. tit. 118 § 832(a)(2) requiring that a victim subjectively believe that a defendant had a weapon and that a defendant’s threat was accompanied by an objective manifestation of a weapon. Thus, the fact that defendant manifested the presence of a deadly weapon in such a way that his victim perceived, through his senses, the existence of a deadly weapon, even if defendant did not actually possess a weapon, was sufficient to support the guilty verdict because objective manifestation was not necessary. Defendant’s motion for postconviction relief was denied.

The Court held: that a weapon was ‘displayed’ to a victim if the weapon was exhibited to the victim’s mind through any of the victim’s senses. The ‘displays’ requirement could be predicated only on the victim’s belief that a defendant possessed a deadly weapon, and some objective manifestation of a weapon, even if the weapon was unseen. The objective manifestation was in the form of a defendant alleging to have a weapon while concealing his or her hand under a piece of clothing. This is a powerful argument for the State of Delaware to support the denial of the appeal from Malik Taylor because it satisfies the additional element needed for first-degree robbery, “displaying a deadly weapon” without having the burden of proof to show that Taylor objectively manifested the deadly weapon to Mr. Evgeni. Taylor’s conduct alone is sufficient to satisfy the necessary element for first-degree robbery because Evgeni perceived through his senses the existence of a deadly weapon from Mr. Taylor, thus dictating his actions of allowing Mr. Taylor to enter the booth with the cash register.

Statement of Facts

Excerpt of testimony of Tihomir Evgeni

  • District Attorney (DA): Could you please state your name and occupation for the record?
  • Evgeni: My name is Tihomir Evgeni. I own and operate the Gas-n-Go on Spruce and 10th Street.
  • DA: Could you describe the events of May 15, 2018?

Evgeni: I was working the early morning shift. It was about 4:00 AM. I was ringing up customers and also trying to stock shelves, so I propped open the door of the cashier’s booth with a piece of cardboard. I was straightening up the counter and when I looked up, I noticed a masked man enter the store. I tried to close the booth door, but the man grabbed it from the outside. As the man was trying to open the door, I saw his hand in his jacket pocket and it looked like something inside the pocket was pointing toward me. I immediately thought it must be a gun. After I knew that he had a gun in his pocket, I just let the door open. The man entered the booth and I opened the cash register. He grabbed about three hundred dollars and left.

  • DA: Did you see his face?
  • Evgeni: No. He was wearing a ski mask that was light blue. He had on a bulky brown jacket and Levi’s. I didn’t really notice his shoes.
  • DA: Can you describe him?
  • Evgeni: I’m 5’8 and he was a little bit taller than me—maybe 5’9 or 5’10? He was African-American and seemed pretty thin—I couldn’t tell for sure because of the jacket.
  • DA: Did you see ever see the gun?
  • Evgeni: No. During the times that I was able to see the robber’s hands, he wasn’t holding a gun. However, he pretty much kept one hand in his pocket the entire time. And like I said, when he put his hand in his pocket, it seemed like he had a gun aimed at me. But when he started to enter the booth, he took his hand out of his jacket pocket and tried to hit me.
  • DA: What made you think that he planned to hit you?
  • Evgeni: He kind of waved his arms around and gestured as if he wanted to hit me, so I moved away and tried to cover myself so that he couldn’t hurt me.
  • DA: Did he say anything?
  • Evgeni: No. He was silent the whole time.
  • DA: What happened next?
  • Evgeni: He left the store and a few minutes later the police pulled up. About 30 minutes later, the police called me and said they had the suspect in custody. They asked me to go to the station to identify him.
  • DA: What happened at the station?
  • Evgeni: There was a line-up of about 5 African-American men.
  • DA: Were you able to identify the robber?
  • Evgeni: I really couldn’t tell for sure. Like I said, he was wearing a bulky jacket and a ski mask the whole time, so I never really got a good look at his face.
  • Public Defender (PD): I would like to show you the video surveillance recording that covers the events of May 15, 2018. Afterwards, I will ask you some questions.

Footage plays.

  • PD: Is it correct that when you were questioned by police you stated that the man did not remove his hand from his pocket the entire time he was in the store?
  • Evgeni: Yes.
  • PD: And just now you testified that when the man’s hand was in his pocket, you believed that he had a gun aimed at you?
  • Evgeni: Yes
  • PD: In the video we just viewed, is the man’s hand in his pocket?
  • Evgeni: No.
  • PD: Does the man ever reach into his pocket?
  • Evgeni: I know he did. He must have done it during the part of the video where you can’t see his hands. I could tell he had a gun on me.

Excerpt of testimony of Virginia Hanson

My name is Virginia Hanson, and I am a police officer with the Wilmington Police Department. I was driving on Spruce Street, approximately 20 feet from the gas station when a pedestrian flagged me down and told me that the station was being robbed. As I pulled into the station, I saw a masked man leaving the store. I observed the man for about three seconds, briefly making eye contact with him before he took off running. I followed in my car for about thirty seconds, until the man jumped over a gate and ran into the backyard of a house. After an unsuccessful foot pursuit that was about 10 minutes long, I put out a description of the man over the police radio. He appeared to be an African-American male, approximately five-seven, five-eight in height, approximately 190 to 200 pounds, wearing a brownish-beige, waist-length jacket, blue jeans, and a light-colored ski mask.

Excerpt of testimony of Daniel Krasprzak

My name is Daniel Krasprzak, and I am a police officer with the Wilmington Police Department. My partner and I were patrolling together when we heard the description that Officer Hanson put out, we then drove over to canvass the Spruce Street area. At about 4:35 a.m., I noticed a black man, approximately 5’5” to 5’7” tall, walking down the street about four blocks from the gas station. He was wearing a black and red hoodie with blue jeans, and gray and black sneakers. The hoodie had a logo on it. I stepped out of the police car and asked the man to stop and show his hands. I noticed that he was breathing heavily, and he had a tear in his right pant leg over the knee. I leaned down to the car to tell my partner that this could be the robbery suspect, and the man started running. I chased him on foot and my partner followed in the cruiser. I caught him after about two blocks, and we took him into custody.

The Surveillance Footage

The camera recording the interior of the cashier’s booth showed Evgeni facing away from the camera and using the cash register to assist customers through the booth window. A piece of cardboard, the corner of a box, and an item identified as a table wheel can be seen on the floor immediately outside of the booth door. About 30 seconds into the video, a masked man walks across the front of the store, past the booth window, and out of frame. Evgeni makes a sudden move toward the booth door and attempts to pull it shut, and the man grabs the doorframe, from the outside, with both hands. The man then pulls the door open, and Evgeni releases the handle; the man shoulders his way through the door, waves his right hand, and Evgeni walks backward. At this point, approximately 47 seconds into the video, a small, black, rectangular object is visible on the floor slightly outside of the doorframe. The man points to the register. When Evgeni does not move, the man approaches him and again points toward the register. Evgeni opens the register and then moves back into the lower-left corner of the frame, assuming a protective posture. The man empties cash register, and at one minute and nine seconds into the tape, leaves the booth and exits the store.

Another camera provided a view of the outside of the cashier’s booth and the aisle leading to the booth door. From this viewpoint, several boxes and packages are seen stacked in the aisle and a piece of cardboard is wedged under the open door. The masked man walks through the customer area into the aisle leading to the booth door and Evgeni begins to pull the door closed; the man lunges toward the door and grabs the doorframe. After several seconds, the man opens the door and stands in the doorframe.