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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2001 Week 1 Hansard (15 February) . . Page.. 275 ..

Mr Stefaniak: If you walk up to someone with an umbrella and say, "Give me your money" and you do not use the umbrella in a threatening way, there is no intent. It is a robbery. It is simple.

MS TUCKER: I am sorry. I cannot believe these people are bloody lawyers. I am going to support Jon Stanhope's amendments. I am very scared about the quality of the arguments Mr Stefaniak has been putting up. I am no expert. This is logic. Legal practitioners in town who are working with disadvantaged people are concerned about this. You say you have support from Legal Aid. Maybe you have. I do not know that, and I am certainly going to follow that up. Maybe you got it on the stalking.

By the way, I am quite happy to say here that I did not look at this definition when we debated stalking. I am quite happy to admit that my office does not always have the time to look at every single detail, and I think we overlooked something when we debated stalking. I am not saying it is necessarily fine. I need to do a lot more research and to look at what that means and determine whether it is different. What I am hearing from people working in the field is that this is dangerous and open to manipulation. You have not convinced me that that is not the case. I am hoping that Mr Stanhope's amendments get up, and I am hoping Mr Rugendyke, Mr Kaine and Mr Moore speak about why they do not support Mr Stanhope's amendments.

MR STANHOPE (Leader of the Opposition): I seek leave to speak again, very briefly.

Leave granted.

MR STANHOPE: I think the point is made in relation to the point we are seeking to put: the distinction between robbery and armed robbery. No element of the offence of robbery requires the use of an offensive weapon. If there is an offensive weapon in the possession of the person, whether or not the offensive weapon is used for the armed robbery, it becomes an offence of armed robbery. Robbery at section 100 is stealing from a person without the use of an offensive weapon. Armed robbery is robbery by a person whilst in possession of a arm or an offensive weapon.

Take the scenario of a robbery. How is a robbery committed? Somebody walks up to somebody in the street, sticks their hand in their coat pocket or sticks their finger in the person's back and says, "Give me your money." It is a robbery. A person walks up to a person in the street, sticks their hand in their pocket or sticks it in the person's back and says, "Give me your money" but in their other hand they are carrying a walkman. It becomes an armed robbery, under your definition.

A person walks into the street, sticks their finger into somebody's back and says, "Give me your money. Give me your wallet." The person takes the wallet and walks away. They do not have any other object on their person. They have committed a robbery. They are susceptible to a 14-year prison term.

They can do the same thing, behave in the same way, but have on their person an object which, in the words of the Attorney's definition, is capable of being used for causing injury. They might not use it for causing injury. They might never take it out of their pocket. The person robbed might not know that the person is in possession of it; that the person is carrying the offensive weapon. The offensive weapon might be a pen in the

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