The Legal Implications of Asserting Possession of a Gun in Robbery

The legal ramifications of claiming to possess a gun while robbing a victim, even if no weapon is present, can be far-reaching and severe. This article explores the consequences, the legal reasoning behind these outcomes, and real-life examples that illustrate the complexity of this issue.

Understanding the Concepts

When a person commits a robbery and asserts having a weapon, even if it turns out the weapon was a mere illusion, they can still be charged with armed robbery. This form of false pretenses can escalate the severity and sentencing of the crime, regardless of whether the weapon was real or not. Let’s delve into how this works:

Armed Robbery vs. Unarmed Robbery

Robbery is defined as the taking of property from someone by force or threat. However, armed robbery specifically involves the use or threat of a weapon capable of causing death or serious injury. This can significantly increase the severity of the punishment, regardless of whether the weapon was real:

Armed Robbery: If a weapon is actually used or a credible threat is made, the sentence can be much more severe. The threat alone can escalate the terror inflicted on the victim and the surrounding environment, justifying the use of lethal force in response.

Unarmed Robbery: While the threat of force can elevate the severity of an unarmed robbery, it is generally punished more severely than simple theft or shoplifting. The force or threat used can result in a term of years in prison.

Legal Context in English Law

In English law, the offense is described as robbery, attempted robbery, or assault with intent to rob. Each of these offenses requires the actual theft of property through the use or threat of immediate force. The term 'armed robbery' is not a distinct offense but refers to the brandishing of a knife, blade, firearm, or imitation firearm. The Sentencing Council issues guidelines that must be considered by judges:

Brandishing vs. False Pretenses: The House of Lords in R v Bentham [2005] UKHL 18 firmly established that there is no offense of merely pretending to possess a firearm. Under the Firearms Act 1968, the possession or use of objects resembling firearms, such as a rigid tube, can suffice, but not merely a hand or finger.

Real-Life Examples

There are real-life scenarios that exemplify the legal complexities of asserting possession of a gun during a robbery:

Bank Robbery and Pretense

A case from the Federal Board of Parole in the 1970s illustrates how such claims can be problematic. The board accused a person of armed robbery despite the individual's denial of carrying a weapon. The evidence supported the individual's claim that the demand note was the only "armament." This case highlights the legal challenges and the documentation required to prove the absence of a weapon:

"If you rob a bank and say you have a gun but you really don’t is it still considered armed robbery? My answer is yes. Doesn’t matter who you rob—a bank, a liquor store, or a little old lady on the street—if you threaten the victim with a weapon, you’ve escalated the stakes and provoke serious consequences."

Personal Experience of Armed Robbery

Your daughter’s hairdressing salon robbery provides another angle. A robber threatened to shoot if the safe was not opened, but there was no visible gun. The police still treated it as an armed robbery due to the credible threat. This example shows that the threat can be just as punitive as the actual possession of a weapon:

"Discussing the incident more, I will reveal how an armed robbery was treated as such even when no gun was seen, emphasizing the severe legal consequences and the psychological impact on victims and the community."

Consequences of Armed Robbery

Armed robbery is treated as a capital offense in most jurisdictions, meaning the perpetrator can face life imprisonment. The increased severity is justified by the heightened risk and terror faced by victims and bystanders. This can lead to more severe sentencing guidelines and penalties:

Key Points

Escalation of Fear: The assertion of a weapon, even if false, can escalate the fear and potential outcomes of a robbery.

Legal Justification: The threat of a weapon can justify the use of deadly force by victims or bystanders.

Increased Sentencing: Armed robbery, whether real or pretended, can lead to more severe sentences under legal guidelines.

Conclusion

The legal implications of asserting possession of a gun during a robbery are profound and far-reaching. Whether the weapon is real or not, the threat itself can elevate the severity of the crime and the sentencing. This highlights the importance of clear and documented proof in such cases to protect those falsely accused and ensure fair legal outcomes.

Keywords

Armed Robbery False Pretenses Sentencing Guidelines