Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2001 Week 1 Hansard (15 February) . . Page.. 272 ..

MR STANHOPE (continuing):

The Attorney made an interesting point about the doubling up in relation to intention. I have to confess that it is not a point I came prepared to rebut or debate. I do not have a copy of the Crimes Act with me here, and it would take me too long to research in any event. But I can use the example that Ms Tucker used. It is a good example. It illustrates the point. Attorney, in your responses to Ms Tucker, you did not do justice to the issue of armed robbery that Ms Tucker raised. Section 101 reads:

The person has already been convicted of robbery. The possession of the offensive weapon is over and above the act of robbery. The person has committed the robbery. He has been convicted. This is a second offence.

Mr Stefaniak: No, it is not. It is the one offence. It is the offence of armed robbery.

MR STANHOPE: It is not. It is a separate offence. A person who commits robbery and at the time of doing so has with him or her an offensive weapon is guilty of an offence punishable, on conviction, by imprisonment for 25 years. It is a second offence.

Ms Tucker: And there is no intent linked with the offensive weapon.

MR STANHOPE: It is a second offence, and there is no intention around the issue of being in possession of the offensive weapon at the time of committing the robbery. The offensive weapon may not have been used for the robbery.

Mr Stefaniak: It is an element of the offence. Just make your submission, then I will tell you the law.

MR STANHOPE: No, you are wrong. A person who commits robbery and at the time of doing so has with him an offensive weapon is guilty of an offence punishable, on conviction, by imprisonment for 25 years. That does not go to the elements of robbery with an offensive weapon. There is a second offence there. This is the point that Ms Tucker made which you did not appropriately respond to. There is a second offence. What if the offensive weapon had absolutely nothing to do with the commission of the robbery?

Mr Stefaniak: Then he or she would be charged with robbery. It is quite simple.

MR STANHOPE: No, you cannot say that. The possession of the offensive weapon, which is now anything that he was carrying, goes to the offence. It is now a definition of offensive weapon which removes any notion of there being a requirement to prove intention in the carrying of the object. That is precisely what it says. I did not come prepared to debate the particular offences, but the issue having been raised and having listened to your defences of the provision, I raise the matter now but not as fully as I might have liked to do.

Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .