Shuib, R. v

Factual and Procedural Background

The Appellant, aged 19, was convicted on 7 November 2023 at the Crown Court at Guildford before Judge Lees and a jury of one count of robbery. He was acquitted of possessing an offensive weapon, specifically a knife, and pleaded guilty to two counts of possessing a drug with intent. The Appellant received a two-year detention sentence suspended for two years. His co-defendant, referred to as Defendant B, was charged with possession of a gun and robbery, but the jury was unable to reach a verdict on those counts.

The facts leading to the conviction involve the Appellant responding to an advertisement for a BMW car sale. On 10 May 2023, accompanied by Defendant B, the Appellant asked the complainant to test drive the vehicle. The Appellant drove for approximately ten minutes before stopping and instructing the complainant to exit the vehicle. The Crown alleged the Appellant produced a knife and Defendant B a gun, but the jury was not convinced regarding the presence of these weapons. The Appellant then drove away with the car, which was later stopped with both defendants inside. The Appellant maintained he acted spontaneously without threat or violence.

At trial, the Crown relied on the complainant’s and other witnesses’ evidence, including the Appellant’s identification and silence during police questioning. The defence contended there was no use or threat of violence, focusing the dispute on whether violence or threat thereof occurred during the alleged robbery. The Appellant now appeals his conviction following leave granted by a single judge.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether the judge’s answers to the jury’s questions regarding the necessity of a weapon or threat of violence for robbery were legally correct.
2. Whether the phrase "get out of the car" could constitute a threat of violence sufficient to support a robbery conviction absent a weapon.
3. Whether the judge should have instructed the jury that, if they found no weapon was used or threatened, they must acquit on the robbery charge based on how the Crown presented its case.

Arguments of the Parties

Appellant's Arguments

• The Crown’s case was always that the Appellant threatened the complainant with a knife.
• If the jury found no knife was present, there could be no other threat or use of force on the facts.
• The judge should have answered the jury’s questions differently, possibly elaborating or repeating parts of the legal directions to reflect this.
• The Appellant’s counsel argued that without a knife, the robbery charge could not stand.

Crown and Co-Defendant's Counsel Arguments

• Force does not have to include a weapon to constitute robbery; a threat of violence is sufficient.
• They agreed with the judge’s proposed answers to the jury’s questions, confirming different verdicts could be returned for each defendant and that threat of force and threat of violence are legally equivalent.
• They did not consider the absence of a weapon to preclude conviction for robbery.

Table of Precedents Cited

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court first addressed whether the judge’s answers to the jury’s questions were legally correct. It affirmed that a threat of force suffices for robbery and that a weapon is not necessary. This was undisputed and the judge’s responses were appropriate.

Next, the court considered whether the phrase "get out of the car" could amount to a threat of violence. It concluded that such words could indeed constitute a sufficient threat to support robbery, consistent with the judge’s instructions and the agreement of counsel.

The court then examined the appellant’s argument that, given the Crown’s case relied on a knife, the absence of a weapon should have led the judge to instruct the jury that no robbery conviction could follow. The court found this argument flawed for several reasons:

• Neither prosecuting nor co-defending counsel suggested that the absence of a weapon required acquittal on robbery during the trial or jury questions.
• The judge shared this view and did not treat the robbery charge as dependent on the weapons charges.
• The appellant’s counsel did not request a specific direction linking the weapons and robbery counts in this way during summing-up.
• Such a direction would have required unraveling the entire structure of the judge’s directions, which was not foreshadowed or justified.

The court also noted that even if the Crown had emphasized weapons, the jury could reasonably find a threat of violence without a weapon, as the appellant’s conduct in ordering the complainant out of the car was inherently threatening.

Accordingly, the court held that the judge’s responses to the jury’s questions were legally sound and no miscarriage of justice arose from the absence of the appellant’s counsel during the jury’s questioning.

Holding and Implications

The court DISMISSED the appeal against conviction.

The direct effect of this decision is that the Appellant’s robbery conviction stands. The ruling confirms that a threat of force sufficient for robbery does not require proof of a weapon or actual violence, and that jury directions reflecting this principle are appropriate even if the Crown’s case initially emphasized weapons. No new legal precedent was established; the court applied established principles as reaffirmed in R v Mundle.