Legal Research
Cases
Lanciana v The King

Lanciana v The King

Case [2023] VSCA 78 6 April 2023

Type to search within this case.

SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

COURT OF APPEAL

S EAPCR 2021 0134

PASQUALE LANCIANA	Applicant
v
THE KING	Respondent

---

JUDGES:	BEACH, McLEISH and KENNEDY JJA
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	21 March 2023
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	6 April 2023
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2023] VSCA 78
JUDGMENT APPEALED FROM:	DPP v Lanciana (Unreported, County Court of Victoria, Judge O’Connell, 31 May 2021)

---

CRIMINAL LAW – Appeal – Conviction – Armed robbery – False imprisonment – Seven counts of money laundering – Armoured van stopped at fake roadworks site to facilitate robbery of cash – Guards restrained in handcuffs at gunpoint – Alternative Crown cases of physical participation in robbery and planning or organising robbery – Whether trial judge’s refusal to give extended unanimity direction in error – Jury not required to be unanimous as to which alternative established – No direction required – Leave to appeal granted – Appeal dismissed.

Crimes Act 1958, s 323.

R v Giannetto [1997] 1 Cr App R 1, applied; R v Swindall (1846) 175 ER 95; Du Cros v Lambourne [1907] 1 KB 40; Thatcher v The Queen [1987] 1 SCR 652; R v Leivers [1999] 1 Qd R 649; R v Cramp (1999) 110 A Crim R 198; Walsh v The Queen (2002) 131 A Crim R 299; Michaels v Western Australia [2009] WASCA 174; Magnus v The Queen (2013) 41 VR 612, discussed.

---

Counsel
Applicant:		Mr T Game SC with Mr PJ Smallwood
Respondent:		Ms DI Piekusis KC with Mr G Buchhorn
Solicitors
Applicant:	Sarah Pratt & Associates
Respondent:	Ms A Hogan, Solicitor for Public Prosecutions

BEACH JA
MCLEISH JA
KENNEDY JA:

On the morning of 22 June 1994, an Armaguard van carrying a large amount of cash left the Reserve Bank in Collins Street, Melbourne. At about the same time, five men dressed as road workers set up a fake roadworks site in Harcourt Parade, Richmond, near the entrance to what was then the South Eastern Freeway.
About 15 minutes later, the Armaguard van turned into Harcourt Parade and approached the fake roadworks site. One of the purported road workers used a stop sign to stop the van. Another offender started to use a loud concrete saw as a distraction. A third drove a truck behind the Armaguard van, blocking the view of cars stopped behind it.
Two offenders, one brandishing a firearm, entered the van through the rear door using a customised key. The offenders handcuffed the three Armaguard workers and placed bags over their heads. After driving the van a short distance, the offenders stopped and fled with the cash from the van.
On 9 August 1994, a company associated with the applicant purchased a block of land in Williamstown for $955,000. The purchase was arranged by a solicitor, John Anile, who was a friend of the applicant. It was agreed that the price on the contract of sale and the conveyancing documents would be $555,000 and that the remaining $400,000…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading Lanciana v The King

Details

AGLC: Lanciana v The King [2023] VSCA 78
Case: [2023] VSCA 78
Decision Date: 6 April 2023

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Lanciana v The King, the appellant Lanciana was convicted on seven counts, including armed robbery and money laundering, following a complex criminal enterprise that involved the stopping of an armoured van at a fake roadworks site. Lanciana was accused of restraining the guards at gunpoint, facilitating the theft of cash. The Court of Appeal was tasked with considering the validity of the conviction, specifically focusing on the trial judge's refusal to provide an extended unanimity direction regarding the jury's verdict on the alternative scenarios of Lanciana's involvement in the crime.

The central legal issue was whether the trial judge erred in not directing the jury to be unanimous on the specific alternative theory of Lanciana's participation in the armed robbery. The Crown presented two alternative theories: Lanciana either physically participated in the robbery or planned and organised it. The appellant argued that the trial judge should have required the jury to be unanimous on which of these two scenarios they believed was proven beyond reasonable doubt. The court had to determine if such a direction was necessary under the applicable legal principles.

The Court of Appeal held that the trial judge's refusal to give the extended unanimity direction was not in error. The court reasoned that the jury was not required to be unanimous as to which of the alternative theories of involvement was proven. This decision was based on the precedent established in previous cases, which held that when multiple theories of liability are presented to the jury, they are not required to agree on the specific theory of guilt as long as they are satisfied beyond reasonable doubt of the accused's guilt on any one of the theories. The court dismissed the appeal, confirming the conviction on all counts.

No further orders were made by the court, affirming the original conviction and sentence imposed by the lower court. The appeal was thus dismissed, and Lanciana's conviction remained intact.

Orders