A man was convicted of stealing a car. He said he didn't threaten the owner with a weapon. The court said that telling someone to get out of their car can be considered a threat, even without a weapon. The man's appeal was dismissed.
Key Facts
- •Rahil Shuib (appellant) convicted of robbery and possessing drugs.
- •Co-defendant Alfie Williams's trial resulted in a hung jury.
- •Robbery involved stealing a car after a test drive.
- •Appellant claimed spontaneity, denying threat or violence.
- •Jury acquitted appellant of possessing an offensive weapon.
- •Jury questions concerned whether force in robbery requires a weapon and if threat of violence equates to threat of force.
- •Appellant's counsel was absent during jury questions but consented to the judge's answers through co-defendant's counsel.
- •Judge answered that force doesn't require a weapon and threat of violence equals threat of force.
Legal Principles
A threat of force is sufficient for robbery; a weapon is not necessary.
Case law and judge's response to jury questions
Words like 'get out of the car' can constitute a threat of violence in a robbery context.
Judge's interpretation and Court of Appeal's affirmation
Outcomes
Appeal against conviction dismissed.
The judge's answers to the jury's questions were legally correct. The 'get out of the car' instruction could reasonably be interpreted as a threat of violence, even without a weapon. The appellant's argument that the lack of a weapon necessitates acquittal was not raised at trial and would require restructuring the judge's directions.