Robbery is a crime against property, which is also directed against the freedom, health and inviolability of the carnal man.
Robbery in the basic type – art. 280 § 1 of the Criminal Code – a perpetrator who steals, uses violence against a person or threatens to use it immediately or leads a person to unconsciousness or vulnerability. The use of violence against a human is based on the physical impact on the human body in order to overcome or prevent him from resisting theft.
Extracting the object from the hand of the victim of the robbery (eg in the often-stolen situation ” on the gap “) is not considered a robbery, because it does not involve the use of violence against a person.
The threat of violence against a person must be directed to the immediate use of violence; the threat of violence may apply to someone other than directly harmed by robbery. Bringing a person to a state of unconsciousness or vulnerability may involve denying the victim or putting him to sleep, depriving him of a wheelchair or a ball necessary to move.
To the occurrence of robbery is enough when the victim, under the influence of violence or the threat of its use, will give the perpetrator the stolen thing.
If the perpetrator of the robbery acts in a way that directly threatens the survivor’s life, in particular if he uses firearms, knives or other similarly acting objects or incapacitating measures or if he works together with another person who uses such a weapon, object, means or method – it is permissible armed robbery in a qualified type, punishable by imprisonment for a period not shorter than 3 years.
The lawyer indicates that in judicial decisions it was considered that another object, which use during robbery may lead to harm to the victim’s life, such as a car, bottle, metal pot, caustic substance, gas, electricity, brass knuckle, crowbar.
To accept that the perpetrator has committed a robbery, it is not necessary to declare the use of a weapon or other similarly dangerous object – it is enough if the perpetrator, for example, shows him to the aggrieved party.
Use of a dangerous animal, e.g. a dog, may be considered a dangerous object or a disabling agent.
For example, he commits a crime of robbery in a qualified type (robbery with the so-called “two” – Article 280 para 2 of the penal code) who puts the eye of a scissors victim with the threat of picking eyes and takes it to appropriate the movable and deliberately demonstrates the victim or touches her body lightly with a knife and then takes her to appropriate the movable thing.
The accusation of an offense of armed robbery in a qualified type is very often connected with the use of a suspected or accused temporary detainee because of the probability of unlawful influence on the course of the trial due to the threat of high penalty (not less than 3 years imprisonment).
It is, however, worth reaching out to the Supreme Court’s case-law, from which it follows that it is not enough for the court itself to appeal to the upper limit of the threat of punishment for the application or extension of pre-trial detention. Before the court decides about the custody or extension of the custody, it must determine (based on the circumstances of the particular case) that the accused person in this particular case is actually under severe punishment. It is about making a kind of forecasting, but only for the purposes of the findings and assessments needed to apply preventive measures.
It is unacceptable to operate the court from the machine: high threat = certain arrest. The legislator used the phrase “threatening accused person a severe punishment”, not “punishment threat”, which is appropriate for determining the statutory threat. In addition, if the statutory threat of punishment were to be a sufficient condition for the application of pre-trial detention, it would be unnecessary for the legislator to appeal to the accused for imprisonment.
Although the deletion of the particularly brash type of robbery and the introduction of a privileged act in the form of a minor case (Article 283 of the Penal Code) creates grounds for a broad interpretation of the sign “uses violence against a person” consistent with the principles of linguistic interpretation, bodily may be regarded as the use of violence against a person, but it must be a violation of bodily integrity not only properly targeted and constituting a way for the perpetrator to take over the thing, but also having some greater than minimal degree of intensity and ailments against the accused. Thus, if the behavior consisting in the use of violence in the form of looting, hitting, digging, which in the previous legal state was assessed by the Supreme Court as not exhaustive concepts of “rape on the person” should be treated as “use of violence” within the meaning of art. 280 § 1 of the Penal Code, the behavior of the perpetrator consisting in bending the injured fingers of the victim and taking the ring, can not be recognized as such.
One of the victims had something that could be the object of an act of robbery, but it was not the thing that the perpetrators expected. The act of the perpetrators was an attempt of incompetent robbery, while the fact that the subject of protection of an offense by the provision of 280.1 of the Penal Code is, next to property, also life and health does not change this assessment.
In the case of the crime of robbery, attempts to commit it can only be made in the case if the actions of the perpetrator were directed directly against both property and against the person. Bringing a state of unconsciousness in order to take away the victim’s keys from the apartment and rob him will not yet attempt to rob, when the perpetrator only performs activities aimed at bringing the victim to a state of unconsciousness. Only taking the victim’s keys and trying to enter the apartment will be an attempt to rob.
The crimes of robbery did not occur because the victim did not have the money, and this allows the act to be considered as completed at the stage of an inept attempt.