Garlett v The Queen

Sydney Patrick Garlett applied for special leave to appeal to the High Court of Australia against a decision of the Court of Criminal Appeal of Western Australia. The applicant had been charged with stealing a sum of money while armed with a dangerous weapon, namely a knife. The facts involved the applicant taking possession of a taxi after threatening the driver with a knife and ordering him out of the vehicle. The applicant then drove the taxi a short distance before being apprehended by police.

The central legal issue before the High Court was whether the applicant's actions constituted the offence of stealing money, or attempting to steal money, or robbery, as defined by the relevant criminal code. Specifically, the court had to consider whether the taking of the taxi, with the hope or belief that money might be found within it, amounted to a fraudulent taking of property. Further, the court had to determine at what point the offence of stealing, if any, was complete, particularly in light of the fact that no money was actually taken and the taxi-driver's wallet was found in the taxi with no money missing.

The Court of Criminal Appeal had been divided. The Chief Justice held that the applicant had not stolen the taxi, nor had he committed a fraudulent taking of anything within it, as he never found the wallet or took any money. His Honour concluded that the offence of stealing money was not complete as there was no physical act of taking or dealing with money. Conversely, two other judges found that the act of stealing money was complete when the taxi was driven away for that express purpose, or alternatively, that the removal of the taxi constituted an attempt to steal or rob. The High Court was therefore required to resolve these differing interpretations of the law regarding theft and robbery.