The State of Western Australia v Majok

The State of Western Australia prosecuted Majok for robbery and the aggravation that during the commission of the offence, he was armed or pretended to be armed with a weapon. Majok pleaded guilty to the robbery but denied the aggravation. The court had to determine whether the existence of the aggravating circumstance should be tried by the judge or the jury. The State argued that it should be tried by the jury, while Majok contended it should be decided by the judge.

The court examined the meaning of "armed" in the context of the offence and the applicable legislation. The court found that the term "armed" in the context of the offence of robbery was not defined in the statute and therefore looked to the common law for its meaning. The court concluded that the term "armed" should be given its ordinary meaning and that it required the presence of a weapon, actual or apparent, that could be used to cause harm or fear of harm. The court held that the existence of the aggravating circumstance of being armed or pretending to be armed should be decided by the judge, not the jury.

The court found that Majok was not armed or pretending to be armed during the commission of the robbery, and therefore, the aggravating circumstance did not apply. Majok was sentenced to a term of imprisonment for the offence of robbery. The court ordered that the indictment be amended to reflect the court's finding that the aggravating circumstance did not apply.