Defence for a Robbery Charge
Lack of Intent: If the accused did not have the intent to commit robbery, it may be possible to argue that they did not form the necessary intent to steal or use force or intimidation.
Mistaken Identity: If there is doubt about the identity of the perpetrator, the defense may argue that the accused was misidentified as the person who committed the robbery.
Alibi: Providing evidence that the accused was elsewhere at the time of the robbery, such as witness testimony or surveillance footage, can support an alibi defense and establish that they could not have committed the offense.
Consent: In rare cases, the defense may argue that the alleged victim consented to the taking of property, which would negate the element of theft required for a robbery conviction.
Duress or Coercion: If the accused was forced or coerced into committing the robbery under threat of harm to themselves or others, they may raise a defense of duress or coercion.
Lack of Force or Intimidation: If there is insufficient evidence to prove that force or intimidation was used to commit the robbery, the defense may argue that the offense does not meet the legal definition of robbery.
Claim of Right: In certain circumstances, the defense may argue that the accused believed they had a legal right to the property taken, which would negate the element of theft required for a robbery conviction.
Voluntary Intoxication: While not a defense in itself, voluntary intoxication may be relevant in cases where the accused’s state of intoxication prevented them from forming the necessary intent to commit robbery.
It’s essential for individuals facing robbery charges to work closely with an experienced robbery criminal lawyer who can assess the case, identify potential defenses, and develop a strategic legal approach tailored to their circumstances. Contact Vick Hundal, a skilled criminal lawyer who can advocate on your behalf, challenge the prosecution’s evidence, and work towards achieving the best possible outcome.