What Is Robbery?
Robbery is defined in section 343 of the Criminal Code. At its core, robbery is theft accompanied by violence or the threat of violence. A person commits robbery when they steal and, for the purpose of extorting whatever is stolen or to prevent or overcome resistance to the stealing:
- use violence or threats of violence to any person,
- wound, beat, strike, or use any personal violence to any person,
- assault any person with intent to steal, or
- steal from any person while armed with an offensive weapon or imitation thereof.
The violence element is what separates robbery from theft. Taking property without permission is theft. Taking property by force, by threat, or while armed is robbery — and the consequences are dramatically different.
Robbery Is a Straight Indictable Offence
Unlike most offences in the Criminal Code, robbery is a straight indictable offence. The Crown has no option to proceed by summary conviction. This means:
- The accused has the right to a preliminary inquiry and a trial by judge and jury if they choose.
- There is no limitation period — charges can be laid at any time.
- The accused will be fingerprinted and photographed.
- The maximum sentence is life imprisonment.
The seriousness of the classification reflects how the criminal justice system treats robbery. It is in the same category as murder, aggravated sexual assault, and kidnapping.
Armed Robbery and Mandatory Minimums
The sentencing provisions for robbery are found in section 344 of the Criminal Code. The key distinction is whether a firearm was used.
Robbery with a firearm (section 344(1)(a)) carries a mandatory minimum of four years imprisonment for a first offence. If the firearm is a restricted or prohibited firearm, the mandatory minimum is five years for a first offence and seven years for a second or subsequent offence.
Robbery with any other offensive weapon or imitation weapon does not carry a mandatory minimum, but the maximum remains life imprisonment. Courts treat armed robberies — whether the weapon is a knife, a bat, or an imitation firearm — as significantly more serious than unarmed robberies.
Robbery without a weapon (section 344(1)(b)) has no mandatory minimum and a maximum of life imprisonment. Sentencing depends on the level of violence used, the vulnerability of the victim, and the accused’s criminal record. Even unarmed robberies frequently result in custodial sentences.
Home Invasion
Home invasion is not a standalone offence in the Criminal Code. It is an aggravating factor under section 348.1 that applies when break and enter of a dwelling house is committed while a person is present and the offender knows or is reckless as to whether someone is home.
Home invasion robberies — where the accused breaks into an occupied home and robs the occupants — combine two of the most serious offences in the Criminal Code: break and enter of a dwelling house (maximum life) and robbery (maximum life). The aggravating factor under section 348.1 requires the court to treat the presence of occupants as an additional factor increasing the severity of the sentence.
Sentences for home invasion robberies are typically substantial. Courts have consistently held that home invasion is a category of offence that requires denunciation and deterrence, and custodial sentences of several years are common even for first-time offenders.
The Identification Problem
Identification is the central issue in many robbery cases. Robberies are often committed quickly, under stressful conditions, by strangers. The victim’s opportunity to observe the perpetrator is typically brief, the lighting may be poor, and the perpetrator may be disguised.
Eyewitness identification has been shown to be one of the leading causes of wrongful convictions in Canada and internationally. Research has demonstrated that eyewitnesses are frequently wrong — particularly in cross-racial identifications, in high-stress situations, and when a weapon is present (the “weapon focus effect,” where the witness’s attention is drawn to the weapon rather than the perpetrator’s face).
Defence counsel challenge identification evidence by examining the circumstances of the identification, the witness’s opportunity to observe, the time elapsed between the offence and the identification, and whether the identification procedure (photo lineup, in-dock identification) was conducted properly. In many robbery cases, the identification evidence is the weakest part of the Crown’s case.
Challenging Statements
Police investigators in robbery cases — particularly officers from the Hold-Up Squad and specialized divisions — are trained to obtain statements from suspects. Due to the difficulty in identifying perpetrators through other means, securing an admission or inculpatory statement is often the primary investigative strategy.
Defence counsel challenge the admissibility of statements on several grounds: the statement was not voluntary (it was obtained through threats, promises, or oppressive conditions), the accused’s right to counsel under section 10(b) of the Charter was violated, or the accused was not properly cautioned about their right to silence. If the statement is excluded, the Crown may be left without its most important evidence.
Defence Strategies
Beyond identification and statement challenges, robbery cases are defended on several fronts:
Lack of intent. The Crown must prove the accused intended to steal and intended to use or threaten violence for that purpose. If the violence was unrelated to the theft, or if the accused’s involvement was peripheral, the intent element may not be made out.
Party liability. In multi-party robberies, the Crown must prove each accused’s specific role and intent. An accused who was present but did not participate in the planning or execution of the robbery may not meet the threshold for liability as a party under section 21 of the Criminal Code.
Charter applications. Evidence obtained through unlawful searches, arbitrary detentions, or violations of the right to counsel can be excluded under section 24(2) of the Charter. In robbery cases, Charter applications frequently target the circumstances of the arrest, the handling of identification procedures, and the taking of statements.
Representative Results
The following are representative cases from our practice involving robbery charges:
- R v. S.W. — Client charged with robbery had charge withdrawn at 2201 Finch Court. The Crown decided not to proceed as it could not be proven that my client was involved in the planning of the robbery.
- R v. M.J. — Client had testimony from a preliminary inquiry partially excluded following a pre-trial application based on a violation of the accused person’s right to make full answer and defence pursuant to Section 7 of the Charter.
Sentencing Considerations
Sentencing for robbery depends on several factors: the level of violence used, whether a weapon was involved, the vulnerability of the victim, the value of the property stolen, the accused’s criminal record, and the degree of planning.
For unarmed robberies by first-time offenders involving minimal violence, sentences may range from probation and conditional sentences to short custodial terms. However, courts have held that even first-offence robberies warrant serious consideration of deterrence and denunciation.
For armed robberies, the mandatory minimums set the floor, but sentences frequently exceed the minimums — particularly where the weapon was discharged, where the victim was injured, or where the accused has a record for violent offences.
For home invasion robberies, sentences of several years are typical, reflecting the courts’ view that the invasion of a person’s home is among the most traumatic forms of criminal conduct.