Armed robbery in Australia : 2004 National Armed Robbery Monitoring Program annual report

Maria Borzycki
ISBN 1 921185 03 1 ; ISSN 1326-6004
Canberra: Australian Institute of Criminology, 2006
(Research and public policy series, no. 69)

2. Victims of armed robbery

• Weapons used against armed robbery victims
• Locations in which vitims were robbed
• Individual victims of armed robbery
• Organisational victims of armed robbery
• Offenders involved in the armed robbery of individual and organisational victims

The number of victims contained in the 2004 NARMP dataset, 6646, is 25 percent lower than the 2003 dataset total. This conforms to a trend observed in ABS RCV, where a 16 percent decrease in the number of armed robbery victims in Australia was recorded over the same timeframe. This equates to a drop in the rate of victimisation from 36 persons per 100,000 to around 30 persons (ABS 2005). The rate of armed and unarmed robbery victimisation in NSW, Australia's largest jurisdiction, has also dropped in recent years (see Moffatt & Poynton 2006). Although generally similar in downward trends, the NARMP victim count differs from that reported by the ABS and this appears to be due to slightly different data selection and extraction rules applied by the various police services when producing the two datasets. The discrepancy in victim number between the two crime data sources means that the rate of victimisation is also slightly discrepant: 33.1 victims of armed robbery per 100,000 of population based on NARMP data, versus 29.8 derived from ABS statistics.

Weapons used against armed robbery victims

A victim-based format can lead to the multiple counting of weapons used in armed robberies, as noted above. However, a count of all the weapons associated with victims is provided in Table 1 to provide context to later analyses exploring weapons used in incidents. As shown, and consistent with the RCV (ABS 2005), knives were the most commonly used weapon, constituting half of all weapons recorded as being used against armed robbery victims in Australia in 2004. Firearms accounted for 15 percent of all recorded weapons, with handguns making up the majority of these.

The relative proportions of weapon types used against victims differ slightly from those recorded in the previous annual report. Most noteworthy, there was a larger proportion of firearms used in 2003 (22%), although in both years, handguns made up around 10 percent of all listed weapons. Twenty-four percent of weapons recorded in 2003 were other weapons (2% more than in the current year), with correspondingly smaller proportions of knives (48% in 2003) and syringes (4% in earlier data; see Borzycki, Sakurai & Mouzos 2004).

Table 1: Weapons used to threaten robbery victims, 2004

Weapon	Number	%
Firearms
Firearm (with no further detail)	163	2
Shotgun	84	1
Rifle, airgun	60	1
Handgun	668	9
Sawn off longarm	9	< 1
Replica firearm	9	< 1
Other firearm (not classified elsewhere)	71	1
Total	(1064)	15
Knives
Knife (with no further detail)	3529	49
Screwdriver	18	< 1
Other knife (not classified elsewhere)	56	1
Total	(3603)	50
Syringes
Syringe	370	5
Total	(370)	5
Other weapons
Other weapon (with no further detail)	425	6
Club, baton or stick	248	3
Rock, stone or brick	54	1
Tool	192	3
Blunt instrument (not classified elsewhere)	32	< 1
Bottle, broken glass	158	2
Chemical spray	8	< 1
Explosive, bomb	1	< 1
Machete, axe	11	< 1
Sledgehammer	10	< 1
Crowbar, metal pipe	404	6
Bow, spear, speargun(a)	2	< 1
Vehicle	5	< 1
Other weapon (not classified elsewhere)	14	< 1
Weapon used (with no further detail)	4	< 1
No weapon used(b)	308	4
Unknown	298	4
Total	(2174)	30
Grand total	(7211)	100
(a) This new weapon category was subsumed by the Other weapon with no further detail category in 2003 data.
(b) The apparently high count of the category of No weapon used arose because jurisdictions who were able to supply information concerning up to three weapons may have noted the absence of a second or third weapon.
Note: Multiple weapon types were listed for some victims therefore number refers to the total number of weapon types listed not the number of victim records. Excludes victims with weapon codes of missing, not applicable or variable not supplied. Percentages do not necessarily total 100 because of rounding.
Source: AIC NARMP 2004 [computer file]

Locations in which victims were robbed

Armed robbery victims, those whose property is the target of the armed robbery, can be individual persons or they can be organisations, such as the service station referred to in the example provided in the background discussion concerning dataset formats (see also the technical appendix). Seventy-one percent of reported victims of armed robbery in 2004 were individuals (n=4657), with the remainder being organisations. The locations in which individuals and organisations were victimised is summarised in Figure 1.

The most common location in which victims were robbed was on the street or footpath (30% of all victims; n=1984), and 97 percent of victimisations in this location were of individual persons. As would be expected, individual victims were in the majority - over 80 percent of victims - in residential settings and in locations that are public, community spaces such as: recreational, transport related settings, in open spaces, on the street, and in educational, justice, health and religious settings (i.e. other community settings). There were also proportionally more individual victims in locations which were not specified or could not be otherwise categorised, reflecting the composition of this category, which includes settings such as crown land, public toilets, and building sites in addition to locations which were not described in any detail. Organisational victims made up over half of the totals in all other location types. These settings are best classified as business premises but some individual victims (over 40 percent of victimisations) were also robbed of property in these sites: in corner stores, newsagents and post offices, pharmacies, and unspecified retailers. It is likely that the individuals in these locations were not the main target for offenders, but merely staff, customers or bystanders robbed by opportunistic offenders who exploited all potential targets.

When considering the broadest possible location types (such as all retail settings, or open public spaces) the proportions of victims robbed in various locations did not differ markedly from those recorded in 2003 (Borzycki, Sakurai & Mouzos 2004). For example, 47 percent of all victims in 2003 were robbed in retail settings, and the equivalent proportion in 2004 was 45 percent. Forty-two percent of victims recorded in both 2003 and 2004 were robbed in open public settings (i.e. recreational, transport, open spaces, and the street and footpath). Less than five percent of victims in either timeframe were robbed in other community settings (including wholesalers, and administrative and professional settings).

Discrepancies between the two data reporting years did arise when considering location in detail, but this is largely due to the greater detail provided in the 2004 dataset. For example, the unspecified retail location captured 31 percent of 2003 victims, whereas the figure for 2004 was 17 percent. As noted above, the proportion of armed robberies occurring in all retail settings was virtually identical across years. The 2004 dataset simply included new retail locations (newsagents and post offices, and corner stores, supermarkets and takeaways) which accounted for 10 percent of victimisations. The percentage of victims captured by the licensed premises category increased from one to five percent of all records from 2003 to 2004.

Individual victims of armed robbery

Around three-quarters of all individual victims were male (73%; n=3406). The average age of victims was 30.4 years, although victims' ages ranged from 89 years to less than one year (infant victims). Regardless of gender, the highest rate of victimisation was among young adults aged 18 to 19 years (83.2 per 100,000; see Table 2). Young men constituted the majority of individual victims for whom age and gender information was available, with 65 percent of male victims aged less than 30 years (similar to proportions reported in 2003). The rate of armed robbery victimisation was also highest among young men (e.g. 127.7 per 100,000 for males aged 18 to 19 years).

The risk of armed robbery victimisation for males and females of different ages varied with location. Around 40 percent of all individual victims were robbed in the street, with high proportions of boys and men aged less than 35 years victimised here (Table 3). Two-thirds of males aged less than 18 years were robbed in public open spaces (i.e. street and footpath, other open spaces, transport related settings). A little under one-third of men over 60 years were robbed in the street, open spaces or in transport settings, but nearly three in 10 robberies of this group occurred in residential locations. Around one-fifth each of women aged between 35 and 59 years and from 18 to 34 years were robbed in unspecified retail sites. Analyses of 2003 data revealed similar patterns, and as noted in the earlier report, this may reflect the different lifestyles of victims. Young males may frequent open public spaces more often than women, and so are more likely to be subject to attacks in these locations.

Table 2: Age and gender of victims as a percentage of gender, and rate of victimisation^(a) by age and gender, 2004

Age Group	Male		Female		Total
	%	Rate	%	Rate	%	Rate	Number
< 15 yrs	6	10.2	3	2.1	5	6.3	(250)
15 to 17 yrs	14	114.5	7	20.7	12	68.7	(564)
18 to 19 yrs	11	127.7	8	36.7	10	83.2	(468)
20 to 24 yrs	21	96.5	18	32.0	20	65.0	(914)
25 to 29 yrs	12	60.9	12	21.7	12	41.4	(562)
30 to 34 yrs	8	36.5	12	18.3	9	27.3	(415)
35 to 39 yrs	6	29.0	8	13.2	7	21.0	(307)
40 to 44 yrs	6	26.6	9	13.6	7	20.1	(309)
45 to 49 yrs	4	20.3	8	13.9	5	17.0	(244)
50 to 54 yrs	4	19.2	6	10.4	4	14.8	(195)
55 to 59 yrs	3	16.7	4	7.9	3	12.3	(148)
60 to 64 yrs	2	13.1	2	5.8	2	9.5	(86)
65 yrs & over	2	6.0	3	2.2	2	3.9	(102)
Total	(n=3357)	33.6	(n=1207)	11.9	100	22.7	(4564)
(a) Rate of victimisation per 100,000 population.
Note: Percentages do not necessarily total 100 because of rounding. Excludes individual victim records with missing age and/or gender data.
Source: AIC NARMP 2004 [computer file]

Table 3: Locations where males and females of different ages were victimised, as a percentage of age group for gender, 2004

Location	Males				Females				Total Number
	<18	18-34	35-59	60+	<18	18-34	35-59	60+
Residential	5	10	12	28	13	11	16	19	(498)
Recreational	11	6	4	2	10	4	2	0	(270)
Transport related	13	9	8	9	15	7	6	10	(410)
Open spaces (excluding street & footpath)	3	2	< 1	1	3	1	< 1	0	(70)
Street & footpath	50	49	35	22	33	38	23	29	(1889)
Educational, health, religious, justice & other community	2	1	1	1	2	1	2	2	(59)
Administrative & professional	0	< 1	1	1	2	< 1	< 1	0	(15)
Wholesalers, warehouses, manufacturing & agricultural	0	< 1	< 1	1	0	< 1	1	0	(8)
Retail with no further detail	7	7	12	16	10	19	23	14	(506)
Banking & financial	< 1	< 1	1	1	0	1	2	2	(31)
Pharmacies & chemists	0	< 1	2	2	2	3	4	12	(63)
Service stations	1	4	4	2	0	3	2	2	(142)
Licensed premises	0	3	4	4	0	4	3	2	(121)
Newsagents & post offices(a)	0	< 1	3	4	0	1	3	3	(51)
Corner stores, supermarkets & takeaways(a)	1	5	9	5	6	4	11	5	(251)
Unspecified & other	6	3	4	3	4	4	3	0	(180)
(Total number)	(690)	(1752)	(785)	(130)	(124)	(607)	(418)	(58)	(4564)
(a) These new location categories were subsumed by the Retail with no further detail category in 2003 data.
Note: Percentages do not necessarily total 100 because of rounding. Excludes individual victim records with missing age and/or gender data.
Source: AIC NARMP 2004 [computer file]

Table 4: Weapons used against male and female victims of different ages, as a percentage of age group for gender, 2004

Age Group	Males					Females
	Firearm	Knife	Syringe	Other weapon	Total number	Firearm	Knife	Syringe	Other weapon	Total number
< 15 yrs	3	65	3	30	(199)	15	63	15	8	(40)
15 to 17 yrs	7	59	3	31	(461)	20	45	7	29	(76)
18 to 19 yrs	9	60	3	28	(343)	16	56	8	20	(95)
20 to 24 yrs	10	58	5	27	(661)	14	59	13	14	(208)
25 to 29 yrs	15	56	6	23	(387)	13	57	9	21	(141)
30 to 34 yrs	16	51	7	26	(250)	16	56	8	20	(133)
35 to 39 yrs	19	46	6	29	(191)	17	47	9	27	(88)
40 to 44 yrs	15	55	3	26	(193)	23	48	7	21	(98)
45 to 49 yrs	17	53	3	28	(139)	14	63	8	16	(96)
50 to 54 yrs	14	45	10	31	(125)	15	62	8	15	(66)
55 to 59 yrs	15	50	3	32	(92)	15	60	0	25	(40)
60 to 64 yrs	10	52	3	34	(58)	9	41	14	36	(22)
65 yrs & over	15	38	5	42	(65)	12	56	16	16	(25)
Total %	12	56	4	28	100	16	55	9	20	100

Given that knives were the most commonly recorded weapon used against victims, it is not surprising that knives made up the largest proportion of weapons used against both males and females in all age groups (see Table 4). However, the relative proportions of weapons used against victims in each age-for-gender group varied. For instance, only three percent of boys less than 15 years of age were subject to firearm robbery, compared with 19 percent of 35 to 39 year old men. Again, this may be linked to the occupations and lifestyles of victims. Later analyses (see Table 15) show that a high proportion of armed robberies in licensed premises involved firearms but only a small percentage occurring in open public spaces were firearm robberies. Minors typically do not frequent licensed premises but do use open public spaces, hence are subject to threats with the types of weapons that are most often used in those locations.

Table 5: Weapons used against individual victims with supplied injury information in two jurisdictions, as a percentage of weapon type, 2004

Injury	Weapon				Total %
	Firearm	Knife	Syringe	Other weapon
No injury	10	18	3	22	17
Minor injury	11	22	20	46	27
Serious injury	3	3	0	11	5
Emotional trauma	76	57	77	21	50
(Total number)	(63)	(336)	(35)	(164)	(598)
Note: Based on first listed weapon for victim. Serious injury refers to that requiring immediate emergency medical treatment. Excludes victim records with unspecified weapon type, or weapon types of unknown, not applicable, or not stated. Percentages do not necessarily total 100 because of rounding.
Source: AIC NARMP 2004 [computer file]

Two jurisdictions were able to supply information relating to victim injury: the following therefore should not be over-interpreted as indicative of all armed robberies in Australia. Table 5 summarises weapons used and victim injury. Half of all victims reported emotional trauma, with around one in 20 reporting serious injury. Analysis showed that proportions of injury type varied with weapon. Data suggest that victims were more traumatised by threats with firearms and syringes than knives and other weapons, but that a sizeable proportion of injuries recorded (18 of the 31 serious injuries and 76 of the 174 minor injuries) actually arose from incidents involving other weapons.

Organisational victims of armed robbery

Organisational victims of armed robbery by weapon use and location, as a percentage of weapon type, 2004

Table 6: Organisational victims of armed robbery by weapon use and location, as a percentage of weapon type, 2004

Location	Weapon
	Firearm	Knife	Syringe	Other weapon	Total number
Residential	3	3	3	3	(59)
Recreational	1	1	1	1	(12)
Transport related	< 1	< 1	3	1	(10)
Open spaces (excluding street & footpath)	0	< 1	0	0	(1)
Street & footpath	2	3	1	4	(50)
Educational, health, religious, justice & other community	1	1	0	1	(13)
Administrative & professional	2	1	1	0	(15)
Wholesalers, warehouses, manufacturing & agricultural	1	< 1	1	< 1	(12)
Retail with no further detail	31	31	44	25	(569)
Banking & financial	8	1	2	7	(71)
Pharmacies & chemists	7	3	9	4	(82)
Service stations	8	27	15	28	(408)
Licensed premises	22	7	2	11	(204)
Newsagents & post offices(a)	5	4	3	1	(67)
Corner stores, supermarkets & takeaways(a)	9	18	12	13	(272)
Unspecified & other	1	< 1	4	< 1	(10)
(Total number)	(430)	(978)	(105)	(342)	(1855)
Note: Based on first listed weapon for victim. Excludes victim records with unspecified weapon type, or weapon types of unknown, not applicable, or not stated. Percentages do not necessarily total 100 because of rounding.
(a) These new location categories were subsumed by the Retail with no further detail category in 2003 data.
Source: AIC NARMP 2004 [computer file]

Thirty percent (n=1989) of victims of armed robbery in 2004 were coded as organisations. As highlighted in Figure 1, the largest proportion of organisational victims was robbed in unspecified retail settings. Table 6 shows that 31 percent of victims whose records included weapon information were robbed in this location, and unspecified retail locations also accounted for the largest proportion of all weapon types except other weapons. However, the proportions of weapon types varied with location. For example, over one-fifth of all organisational victimisations where a firearm was used took place in licensed premises and over one-quarter of knife robbery victims were threatened in service stations.

Offenders involved in the armed robbery of individual and organisational victims

Information relating to up to five offenders could be supplied, although this was not possible in all jurisdictions, thus data do not accurately reflect all armed robbery offenders (see also technical appendix). Offender information is typically only provided when an offender has been proceeded against, but data concerning the final adjudication of cases arising from the armed robberies described in the NARMP are not available. The term offender, therefore, is used to describe the alleged perpetrator of an armed robbery, regardless of whether their involvement in this crime was later proven.

Of those victims for whom offender information was available (n=1820), an average of 1.5 offenders were recorded as involved in their victimisation. The average was slightly higher for individual victims (1.6 offenders) than organisations (1.3 offenders). Table 7 summarises the relative offender counts for both types of victims. As the averages suggest, a slightly higher proportion of organisational victims were robbed in incidents linked to single offenders relative to offender groups, than were individual victims. Analyses of 2003 armed robberies similarly suggested that organisational victims tended to be robbed by lone offenders, although as noted in the earlier work (Borzycki, Sakurai & Mouzos 2004) limitations associated with offender data may lie behind this finding.

Information regarding the relationship between victims and the armed robbery offenders who targeted them was available for 1676 victims. Of these, 108 victim records also contained information describing relationships between victims and second and subsequent offenders. These data were collapsed across the five relationship variables and are summarised in Table 8. Because of the high number of victim records without relationship information, this variable has been examined only once in this report. As shown, all but eight percent of offenders were unknown to victims. Of the 120 victim records with data describing pre-existing relationships, 47 (39%) were robbed in residential settings. This is to be expected, as it is unlikely that offenders would randomly target residences: prior knowledge of the possible gains and risks associated with home invasion would seem important for all but the most opportunistic of armed robbers. Interestingly, 23 percent of victims who had pre-existing relationships noted were robbed on the street or footpath. Stated differently, around one percent of victims of street robberies knew their assailants. This location is perhaps most commonly thought of as the site of anonymous muggings but these data show that not all street robberies are perpetrated by strangers.

Table 7: Offenders involved in the armed robbery of individual and organisational victims, as a percentage of victim type, 2004

Offender count	Victim type		Total number
	Individuals	Organisations
Nil/unsolved(a)	74	69	(4826)
One	16	24	(1232)
Two	6	5	(362)
Three	2	2	(145)
Four	1	< 1	(61)
Five	< 1	< 1	(20)
(Total number)	(4657)	(1989)	(6646)
(a) Includes victim records which were unsolved or with an outcome where no offender was proceeded against, or where offender information could not be supplied, therefore producing an offender count of 0.
Note: Dataset contains a maximum of 5 offenders therefore victimisations involving more than 5 offenders will record up to only 5 offenders. Percentages do not necessarily total 100 because of rounding.
Source: AIC NARMP 2004 [computer file]

Table 8: Relationships between individual victims and offenders, 2004

Relationship	Number	%
Offender(s) known to victim	(144)	8
Offender(s) unknown to victim	(1085)	59
No offender identified, relationship unknown	(618)	33
Total	(1847)	100
Note: Multiple offender-victim relationships were listed for some victims therefore number refers to the total number of relationship types listed, not the number of victim records. Excludes victim records with relationship coding of missing, not applicable or variable not supplied. Percentages do not necessarily total 100 because of rounding.
Source: AIC NARMP 2004 [computer file]

Information relating to the state of the robbery investigation was not available for all records within the 2004 dataset (missing n=2634), limiting the interpretability of any analyses and comparability with other recorded crime data. Because of missing data, this variable has been examined only with respect to victims (see Table 9) in order to provide a summary of obtained data. It has not been employed in any other analysis.

Table 9: Status of investigation(a) by victim type, percentage, 2004

Relationship	Individuals	Organisations
Investigation not finalised	49	45
Investigation finalised, no offender proceeded against	22	10
Investigation finalised, offender proceeded against	29	45
Other outcome	< 1	0
(Total number)	(2807)	(1205)
(a) Refers to the outcome at data extraction or to outcome at 180 days for jurisdictions which were unable to supply outcome at data extraction.
Note: Excludes victim records in which investigative outcome was missing or not supplied. Percentages may not total 100 because of rounding.
Source: AIC NARMP 2004 [computer file]

Higher proportions of victims had armed robbery matters finalised in 2003 NARMP data (65%; Borzycki, Sakurai & Mouzos 2004) and in 2004 RCV (79%; ABS 2005). Apparent inconsistencies are likely to have arisen in part because of differing variable definitions (e.g. the ABS employs outcome at 30 days following offence report), and in part because of missing data in the 2004 victim file. If missing data are assumed to relate to matters which were not finalised at the time of data extraction, the proportions of investigative outcomes in the NARMP are in keeping with other recorded crime data sources:

• 68% not finalised
• 11% finalised with no offender proceeded against
• 20% finalised with offender(s) proceeded against.