Suppose Bob programs an armed robot to shoot passers by as it senses them walking past and then places it on his front lawn, or alternatively to reach out with a boxing glove and punch them. Bob's robot subsequently wounds (or assaults) 5 separate people over the course of the week.
If Bob intends that the robot inflict bodily harm, setting up the robot is the offence of setting a trap defined at s. 247(1) of the Criminal Code, which happens at the time the robot is set up by the accused.
If the trap actually inflicts harm, that further makes out the offence of inflicting harm with a trap, defined at s. 247(2), which happens when the harm is inflicted upon the victim.
It is also plain assault, defined at s. 265, which includes indirect applications of force. This happens at the time the force is applied to the victim.
Depending on the mechanism for shooting, possession of the robot or deploying it on the front lawn may also be firearms offences.
The exact type of assault would depend on the extent of the injury. For example, under s18 of the Offences Against Persons Act 1861 (see my added emphasis in bold):
Whosoever shall unlawfully and maliciously by any means whatsoever wound or cause any grievous bodily harm to any person, . . . with intent ... shall be guilty of felony ...
The actus reus of a s18 assault is the "wounding or grievous bodily harm". This must take place at the moment this is inflicted on each victim. It makes no difference that it was done by a robot. The only relevant consideration is whether Bob caused the assaults. Clearly, he did.
Criminal liability only arises where the actus reus and mens rea coincide in time. Bob may attempt to use this to his advantage and argue that he did not possess the necessary mens rea at the time of each assault. This argument will fail.
Under the “single transaction” principle, a continuing act (Fagan v MPC [1969]) or a series of acts (R v Thabo-Meli [1954]) can be treated as a whole to allow the actus reus and mens rea to coincide. Therefore, the programming of the robot and the assaults can be viewed as a "single transaction" to prevent Bob from employing this argument.
Programming a robot to shoot at people can be used to show wilful indifference to the death or suffering of victims, which is one of the trigger factors for Mord (murder) in Germany under § 211 StGB. That's the low-motiv variant, first-degree murder, punished by life imprisonment. Even if that is not provable, Totschlag § 212 StGB (also murder, but 2nd degree) the least that can be proven, as the case of Klaus-Dieter Baumgarten shows - 11 convictions of Totschlag, 5 of attempted Totschlag for ordering the mounting of mines at the inner-German Border, five officers that mounted and maintained the mines were convicted of Mord. And unsuccessful killing is automatically an attempt that is punished just as the actual crime.
On a slightly tangential note: driving street races is also versuchter Mord in Germany, as can be throwing logs of bridges. The factor in question? The same depraved indifference that makes setting a booby trap Mord.
