The accused is charged with demanding property [with menaces/by force], with intent to steal property.

To prove the accused is guilty, the Crown must prove beyond reasonable doubt each of the following elements which make up the offence:

You can only find the accused guilty if the Crown proves each element beyond reasonable doubt. If the Crown fails to prove any one of them you must find the accused not guilty.

I will now explain to you what each element means.

1. The accused made a demand for property

A demand can be express or implied. In the present case, the Crown alleges the accused made their demand of [the alleged victim] expressly by … [specify the Crown case as to demand].

[Alternatively:

Here the Crown alleges that, although the accused did not make the demand expressly, you would infer from all of the circumstances and what was [said/done] to [the alleged victim] that the accused was demanding the property from [the alleged victim]. [A direction on the care required in relation to drawing inferences should be considered: see [3-150]].]

On the other hand, the accused denies that any such demand was made, whether in express words or by inference. The accused says … [specify defence case as to demand].

2. Accompanied with menaces/by force

The second element the Crown must prove is that the demand was accompanied [with menaces/by force]. [Where appropriate: “Menaces” means a threat. Here, the Crown alleges [specify the threat/force used]].

The Crown has to prove what the accused actually said or did. When you have decided what the accused has said or done, then you must ask yourselves whether these words and/or actions amounted to [a threat/force].

This is to be determined objectively. That means, you as the jury have to decide whether a person of ordinary firmness of mind would have regarded what the accused [said/did] as [a threat/force], and would have likely been influenced so as to give in unwillingly to the demand. This is the test to apply, rather than whether the [alleged victim] themselves was or would have likely been influenced by it to act in a way contrary to [the alleged victim’s] wishes. That is what I meant by saying the matter is to be determined objectively, by your assessment of the reaction of a person of ordinary firmness of mind which may or may not have been the reaction of [the alleged victim] in this case.

The menace need not involve violence or injury and can be by the accused or any other person. [Specify how the Crown puts its case in this respect.]

It is also not necessary that [the alleged victim] actually gives way to the threat or the force, or actually hands the property over.

[Set out the respective Crown and defence cases as to the threat or force].

3. With the intention to steal

The third element the Crown must prove is that at the time the accused made the demand on [the alleged victim] for their property [as specified in indictment], they had the intention to steal it. To prove this, the Crown must satisfy you beyond reasonable doubt the accused, when they made the demand, intended to permanently deprive [the alleged victim] of this property, knowing or believing that the accused was not legally entitled to the property and that the accused acted with a dishonest state of mind.

[A suggested direction on intention is to be found at [3-210] and may be adapted to suit the circumstances of the case].

[If the accused raises a claim of right, a suggested direction is to be found at the end of [5-6105] and may be adapted to suit the circumstances of the case].

The Crown alleges … [specify the Crown case on intent to steal]. On the other hand, the accused says … [specify the defence case on intent to steal].