R v Stehbens and Allford
[2023] SADC 175
•15 December 2023
DISTRICT COURT OF SOUTH AUSTRALIA
(Criminal)
R v STEHBENS AND ALLFORD
[2023] SADC 175
Judgment of his Honour Judge Slattery
15 December 2023
CRIMINAL LAW - PARTICULAR OFFENCES - PROPERTY OFFENCES - ROBBERY
The accused Christopher Mark Allford (Allford) and Nathan Troy Stehbens (Stehbens) are jointly charged on Information for arraignment on 19 August 2022 with the following offences:
First Count
Aggravated Robbery. (Section 137(1) of the Criminal Law Consolidation Act, 1935).
Second Count
Aggravated Robbery. (Ibid).
Both accused made an election for Trial by Judge Alone.
Held:
Each of the accused are guilty on each count on the Information for arraignment on 19 August 2022.
Criminal Law Consolidation Act 1935 (SA), referred to.
R v STEHBENS AND ALLFORD
[2023] SADC 175
The accused Christopher Mark Allford (Allford) and Nathan Troy Stehbens (Stehbens) are jointly charged on Information for arraignment dated 19 August 2022 with the following offences:
INFORMATION
Criminal Procedure Act 1921 s 123(1)(a)
For arraignment on 19 August 2022
Information of the Director of Public Prosecutions
Christopher Mark Allford and Nathan Troy Stehbens are charged with the following offences:
First Count
Statement of Offence
Aggravated Robbery. (Section 137(1) of the Criminal Law Consolidation Act, 1935).
Particulars of Offence
Christopher Mark Allford and Nathan Troy Stehbens on the 1st day of November 2021 at Gillies Plains, used or threatened to use force against Jacinta Leigh Clark in order to commit the theft of cigarettes, and the force was used, or the threat was made, at the time of, or immediately before, the theft.
It is further alleged that Christopher Mark Allford and Nathan Troy Stehbens used, or threatened to use, an offensive weapon, namely a taser, to commit, or when committing, the offence.
It is further alleged that Christopher Mark Allford and Nathan Troy Stehbens committed the offence in company with each other and with another person.
Second Count
Statement of Offence
Aggravated Robbery. (Ibid).
Particulars of Offence
Christopher Mark Allford and Nathan Troy Stehbens on the 1st day of November 2021 at Para Hills, used or threatened to use force against Gabrielle Howieson in order to commit the theft of cigarettes, and the force was used, or the threat was made, at the time of, or immediately before, the theft.
It is further alleged that Christopher Mark Allford and Nathan Troy Stehbens used, or threatened to use, an offensive weapon, namely a taser, to commit, or when committing, the offence.
It is further alleged that Christopher Mark Allford and Nathan Troy Stehbens committed the offence in company with each other and another person.
s.137(1) of the Criminal law Consolidation Act 1935(CLCA) provides:-
137—Robbery
(1) A person who commits theft is guilty of robbery if—
(a) the person—
(i)uses force, or threatens to use force, against another in order to commit the theft; or
(ii)uses force, or threatens to use force, against another in order to escape from the scene of the offence; and
(b)the force is used, or the threat is made, at the time of, or immediately before or after, the theft.
Maximum penalty:
(a) for a basic offence—imprisonment for 15 years;
(b) for an aggravated offence—imprisonment for life.
(3) If 2 or more persons jointly commit robbery in company, each is guilty of aggravated robbery.
Example—
Suppose that A and B plan to steal from a service station. A assaults the attendant while B takes money from the till. In this case, each is guilty of robbery on the principle enunciated by the High Court in McAuliffe v R ((1995) 183 CLR 108). Robbery committed in these circumstances is to be treated as aggravated robbery. In other words, the principle that, where robbery is committed jointly, each participant in the offence is guilty of aggravated robbery applies irrespective of whether all elements of robbery can be established against a particular person.
An overview of the facts
On 1 November 2021, Ms Clark worked as a console operator at the Woolworths Supermarket at 575 North East Road, Gillies Plains. On that day, two boxes containing cigarettes and razors had been delivered to the service counter of the store. At about 5.39 pm Ms Clark was in the staff only area of that service counter. A male and a female approached that counter. They were both wearing motorcycle helmets and their faces could not be identified. The male entered the staff area, held out his hand and told Ms Clark that he had a ‘taser’ in his hand and he would be taking the boxes. Ms Clark stood back and the male took one box, handed it to the female and then took the other box. They exited through an emergency fire door and an alarm was set off. There were a number of witnesses to these events. Ms Heidi Beer, a shopper at the centre observed a male Woolworths employee filming two people getting onto a motorcycle. She could hear an alarm sounding and assumed that the these two people had broken into a car, and she could identify that two cardboard boxes were being carried by them.
Ms Beer followed the motorcycle in her car and whilst waiting for traffic, she observed a Mitsubishi Magna sedan parked on the northern side of Millbank Avenue, which runs contiguous with the shopping centre. The car was parked about fifteen meters from her vehicle at the car park entrance. Ms Beer saw the female alight from the motorcycle and place the two cardboard boxes in the Magna. She then drove towards the Magna and saw that the female had dropped something onto the road. Ms Beer was unsure what it was. Ms Beer intended to place the front of her vehicle over it so that it could not be recovered by the female pillion passenger. She did not succeed. She stopped just before she reached the female who was picking up the object on the road. There was an angry exchange between the female and Ms Beer. The female threatened to taser Ms Beer.
Ms Beer then followed the motorcycle eastwards along Millbank Avenue then called the police. Later, Ms Beer identified to the police that the registration number for the Magna was S126BNZ.
An employee of Woolworths also took a photograph of the Magna motor vehicle and the motorcycle.
Mr Joshua Sabine was an employed as a supervisor at the Woolworths Supermarket at Wilkinson Road, Para Hills. On that same day, he was collecting trollies and observed a motorcycle parked in the car park. He saw that it had no numberplates and it looked like it had been spraypainted a black colour. The paintwork was peeling. The motorcycle had been painted black. He could identify a gold rim on the inside of the wheels of the motorcycle and a blue colour under the painted fairing on the motorcycle.
Mr Sabine saw a male and a female wearing helmets dismount from the bike. He later saw the motorcycle being moved to a position outside of the front door.
At about 7.45 pm Ms Howieson, an employee at Woolworths was working in the express area of the Supermarket and when she saw the male and a female walk into the store. They were wearing motorcycle helmets. About ten minutes later the male entered the express area, and pulled out a taser from his jacket pocket and pointed it at Ms Howieson telling her that he had a taser. He appeared to activate the taser and she heard a crackling sound and saw it light up. He then picked up a box containing some cartons of cigarettes and handed it to the female. He went to pick up a second box but found that it was empty. The male and female then left the premises.
About 50 minutes later, a police officer observed the Magna motor vehicle on Walkley’s Road at Ingle Farm. It was followed until it entered a Caltex Service Station at Modbury. The driver exited the vehicle. It was the accused Stehbens. Upon a search of the vehicle, police located ripped cardboard boxes and on one of them, police saw a consignment sticker which carried the words ‘Gillies Plains’ and ‘1/11/21’ written on it. On another box, the writing on the consignment sticker was ‘Para Hills’ and the date ‘1/11/21’ was also written on the box. Stehbens was arrested and his mobile phone seized. He was interviewed and claimed he had purchased the Magna that evening and only had it for an hour before arrest. In his evidence at trial, Stehbens admitted that this was a lie.[1]
[1] T278.15.
The seized Mitsubishi Magna vehicle was searched by police on 3 November 2021. Police located the following:-
(a)A cardboard box with a sticker marked ‘Para Hills’. A dispatch date of 1/11/2021 and printed in red on the box was the following: ‘please return to Woolworths DC for reuse’
(b)Two cardboard boxes marked ‘Gillies Plains’ with a dispatch date of 1/11/2021 and the boxes had printed on them the following: ‘Please return to Woolworths DC for reuse’.
(c)A pink zip up case containing miscellaneous documents and an identification card in the name of Allford.
(d)A letter addressed to Amy Campbell at 93 Oxford Street Hillcrest. The vehicle was swabbed for DNA and for fingerprints.
On 6 November 2021 an off duty police observed a blue motorcycle being ridden by a male rider with a female pillion passenger and later that evening, Amy Campbell and Allford were located with a motorcycle nearby and outside of 26A Elliott Avenue, Holden Hill. Each of them had a form of backpack carry bag on their person. In a bag belonging to Amy Campbell (hereafter called Campbell) police found packets of cigarettes.
In relation to the fingerprint analysis of the exterior surface of the Magna, police identified on an exterior panel on the rear drivers side passenger door a fingerprint belonging to Campbell. An analysis of the fingerprints located on the cardboard box with ‘Para Hills’ written on it which had been found in the boot of the Magna, were identified as fingerprints belonging to Allford. Fingerprints also belonging to Allford were identified on plastic wrapping located in the Magna.
Stehben’s phone was analysed and there were text message conversations between Stehbens and a contact name saved as ‘Cris and Amy’; this was Allford’s phone. In a message sent to Stehbens’ phone on 1 November 2021 at 9.15 am Cris and Amy[2] write ‘…sorry (about)[3] yesterday mate I fucking had massive tiff with Amy fucking hectic. You wanna come to do that thing.’ The user replies ‘ready Wn U R bro’. At 9.17 am on 1 November 2021 a different contact sent a message to the phone: ‘we are on the bike’. The user replies ‘come to Nikki’s the contact then replies ‘here’. The user replies ‘ready when U R’.
[2] Amy is alleged to be Campbell
[3] The wording of the message is different but is to be understood as ‘about’.
Police checked the invoice numbers on the boxes found in the rear of the Mitsubishi Magna. The staff of Woolworths confirmed that the invoice numbers matched those as recorded for the stolen boxes.
Preliminary matters
There are a number of preliminary matters that require discussion. The charges relate to alleged robberies. A robbery occurs when the accused commits theft and uses force or threatens to use force against another in order to commit the theft or to escape from the scene of the offence and the force or threat was used at the time of or immediately before or after the theft. Under s 137(2) CLCA, if two or more people commit a robbery in company then each is guilty of an aggravated robbery. There are therefore a number of elements that are required to be proved beyond reasonable doubt. In relation to the first element of theft, it is necessary to prove that the accused dealt with property, that the dealing was dishonest, and was without the owners consent. It is also necessary to prove that this dealing with property was intended to permanently deprive the owner of the property or to seriously encroach upon the owners rights in the property. A person deals with property if that person takes the property. The prosecution case is that Allford and Campbell took the property, namely the boxes.
In relation to the second aspect of dishonesty, it is necessary to prove that the accused was acting dishonestly according to the standards of ordinary people and he must have known that his actions were dishonest according to the standards of ordinary people. It must be proved that the accused did not believe that he had a legal right to the property and for example whether there is a reasonable possibility that he believed he had a legal right to the property. The third element is that the accused dealt with the property without the owner’s consent and the fourth is that the accused intended to permanently deprive the owner of the property namely that the defendant intended that the owner of the property, Woolworths, would not get it back. The prosecution case is that the accused intended to deal with the property in a way that created a substantial risk that the owner would not get the property back.
On the second element of force, it is necessary to prove that the accused used or threatened to use force against the employees of Woolworths. The prosecution case is that the accused purpose in using or threatening to use the taser was to enable them to take the boxes of cigarettes. The force was used at the time of the theft. Therefore in summary, it must be proved to my satisfaction beyond reasonable doubt:-
(a) The accused committed theft;
(b) That they used or threatened to use force against a person in order to commit the theft;
(c)They used or threatened to use that force at the time of the theft.
The accused are alleged to have been involved in a joint criminal enterprise and that in the execution of it, they committed this offence. A joint criminal enterprise occurs where two or more accused enter into an agreement to commit a offence; the accused participated in that joint agreement; whilst that agreement was on foot, one or more of those parties to the agreement committed the charged offence; and the accused had the state of mind necessary to commit that charged offence. The agreement required does not need to be expressed and may be inferred from conduct, it does not need to be long standing and it can occur on the spur of the moment. There does not need to be a complete meeting of the minds and, in the criminal law generally, that is often unlikely to be the case. The focus is always upon the agreement to do the particular acts which form the actus reus of the ultimate offence and so it is not necessary to prove a shared intention to commit the offence.
In relation to participation, it is only necessary for the prosecution to prove that all of the accused participated in the sense of giving assistance before during or after the offence. This assistance can be at the scene of the offence or at another location away from the offence.
Therefore the focus is then upon the commission of the relevant acts under the agreement. The focus here is upon the acts committed within the scope of the agreement and finally, that the accused had the state of mind necessary to commit the offence.
Therefore in order to satisfy me beyond reasonable doubt that the accused participated in a joint criminal enterprise, it is necessary for the following matters to be proved by the prosecution to my satisfaction beyond reasonable doubt:-
1. The accused agreed between themselves to commit the offence;
2. Each of the accused participated in that agreement;
3. Whilst that agreement existed, one or more of the parties committed the acts necessary to commit the offence;
4. At the time of each of the accused participation, those persons had the state of mind required to commit the offence
In this case, the issue is not that robberies took place at the two Woolworths Shopping Centres. Here it is alleged that three people involved themselves in the joint criminal enterprise. One of them, the female Campbell, has entered pleas of guilty to each charge separately.[4]
[4] Exhibit P30, Statement of Agreed Facts number 32.
Identification is the issue, and as will be seen, although the offences were captured on the CCTV system in each store, it is not possible to properly identify the faces of the male and female offenders from that film footage because those offenders were wearing a motorcycle helmets during the robberies. The issue of the identity of the persons allegedly involved in these crimes is the issue for proof. In part, at least, proof of the identity of the offenders in each of the stores relies upon circumstantial evidence.
In the usual course, where a prosecution case is wholly or substantially based upon circumstantial evidence, guilt must not only be a rational inference drawn from the evidence but it must be the only rational inference arising from the evidence.
The accused Stehbens contends that at least two facts are indispensable intermediate facts. It is submitted that I would need to be satisfied of these facts beyond reasonable doubt. The first that it was Stehbens who was driving the white Mitsubishi at the time of the robbery at Gillies Plains. The second that the white Mitsubishi was used in the robbery at the Para Hills and that Stehbens was then the driver of that vehicle and so was involved in a joint criminal enterprise with the two robbers. Any indispensable intermediate facts must be proved beyond reasonable doubt and in making a decision, I must consider the role and significance of particular evidence of facts in respect of which a direction is appropriate. The direction will be appropriate if the findings on those facts form an indispensable link in the chain of reasoning towards guilt. Such an assessment includes whether as a matter of ordinary logic a fact is indispensable to guilt. In summary, the facts must really be in the nature of links in the chain and the corollary of that test is whether, if those links in the chain are not proved beyond reasonable doubt, the prosecution case could not succeed because of the absence of proof of those facts. I will address these matters again when I address the submissions of the accused on the question of the alleged intermediate facts and whether they form indispensable links in the chain of proof.
The premises: a description
The Gillies Plains Shopping Centre comprised of the Woolworths Shopping Centre together with other major outlets and other smaller shops. It is bounded by Blacks Road, Millbank Avenue and Linton Avenue. The principal entrance is from Blacks Road and from Millbank Avenue for cars parking near the Woolworths Shopping Centre. A map of the shopping centre showing the Woolworths Shopping Centre fronting onto the parking area adjacent to Blacks Road and Millbank Road is Exhibit P11. I am satisfied from the evidence that this is not an up to date map and that a number of physical changes have been made to the buildings including the erection of verandahs and other services. Those changes are disclosed within Exhibit P1 which is a floorplan of the Woolworths Gillies Plains Shopping Centre. This plan, although accurate contemporaneously, was not the way that the shopping centre was disposed in 2021. That is important in a number of respects. The changes include provision of a ‘direct to boot’ service area on the left hand side of the map. Within that direct to boot area is a fire door that was present in 2021. Dropping down to the bottom of the map, showing the interior of the premises, there is a large room with associated services, in part adjacent to the direct to boot area but inside of the Woolworths Shop. That area was not present in 2021. The aisles which are disclosed above that new area and leading up to the wall adjacent to Millbank Avenue were present. In 2021 those aisles came down further and were the equivalent of the aisles which are seen in the balance of the map.
There are two groups of checkouts. The first is identified merely as ‘CHECKOUTS’ and there is an associated arrow. There is a second form of checkout called ‘SELF SERVE CHECKOUTS’. To the right of those self serve checkouts is what is described as the service desk. To the right of the service desk is the entrance.
In 2021, a person standing at or near the service desk could see along the whole of the front of the checkouts down to the wall which fronts onto the carpark and then onto Blacks Road. The room now constructed did not then obstruct the view of employees.
Within the service desk are checkout facilities and that service desk at that time contains the storage for vending cigarettes and similar products. The sale of cigarettes is restricted under the applicable legislation, and cigarettes may only be obtained from that service desk area. Cigarettes are delivered to that service area in carboard boxes. Those carboard boxes are otherwise unmarked except for information pertinent to the Woolworths business. These include writing in red, plus invoice material. Once these boxes are delivered to the service desk area, their contents are unpacked and placed within particular drawers in the service area relevant to particular brands of cigarettes.
The fire door identified upon exhibit P1 is not a form of access. If a person wrongly opens the fire door then an alarm sounds. Thus, anyone using that door either without cause or illegally, would draw attention to themselves because of the immediate operation of the alarms associated with the opening of those fire doors.
A view of the entrance of the Woolworths Supermarket is shown in Exhibit P2. This view is a still photo from a CCTV camera. The film was taken on 1st November 2021. The still shows the scene at 5.38 pm. The photo discloses that the Woolworths store fronts onto a mall which contains other shops. In the photograph, there are a number of shoppers but predominately the photograph discloses two people wearing motorcycle helmets. Other people in the photograph are wearing face masks. It was during the COVID-19 pandemic that these events occurred.
The second person wearing the helmet is a female. The first person is obviously a male. He is tall and heavily built. He is wearing what appears to be red gloves. His clothing is dark. There is piping over the top and middle of his upper garment. His trousers and his shoes are dark. The female is wearing a pair of pink sports shoes. In the second photo on Exhibit P2, these two people may be seen more clearly and a better comparison may be made between the females height and that of the male. It may be also seen that she is wearing some form of leggings. Her hair protrudes from the rear of the helmet, it is of a light colour, perhaps blonde or gingery. The second and third photos of Exhibit P2 show the male has entered the service desk area through a swing door. Within the area it may be seen that there are a series of drawers as well as checkout points. A female employee of Woolworths is in that area and the male is approaching her. He is about 50 cm away from her. There is a rectangular object of a dark colour in his right hand. The second photo is Exhibit P2 shows that the Woolworths employee is holding two cartons, she has what appears to be a pen in her right hand and she is looking down at the object in the hand of the male.
The Woolworths employee was Ms Jacinta Clark, who was employed at the Gillies Plains Woolworths Shopping Centre from November 2020 and in November 2021, she worked as a customer service assistant department manager.
On 1 November 2021 Ms Clark commenced her shift at about 8 am and from that time, she worked at the customer service kiosk where cigarettes are sold. There are three express checkouts associated with that desk and then two front of store service desk checkouts. The service area is a square area and contain cabinets with cigarette drawers, a bench with cabinets underneath, two registers and along side of which are three express registers. There is a gate within the area which is the entrance to the service desk. That gate closes off the area from public access. Only staff are permitted to be in the area which is located at front of store (viz exhibit P1).[5]
[5] T57.4 et seq.
On 1 November 2021, the store received a delivery to the service desk. These were what she described as security boxes. They are plain brown boxes and contain cartons of cigarettes and shaving razors. There were two boxes delivered. Ms Clark placed them in the service desk area near the central bench. The boxes were gray/brown in colour, about 60 to 70 cms wide and about 40 to 50 cms high. They have security tape on the top and bottom of the boxes to ensure that they are not interfered with prior to delivery to the service area.
There is writing upon that tape called ‘security seal’ and the sides of the boxes have printed in red upon them a message to return them to Woolworths DC. She could not recall the exact wording.[6]
[6] T57.27-T58.14: T58.29-.38.
After receiving the two boxes, Ms Clark opened one of them and took out a couple of cartons or packets of cigarettes and then commenced to check off the contents against a dispatch list. When she started doing so, a man wearing a motorcycle helmet came to the service desk and held out something in his hand. It was of a dark rectangle shape. He told her: ‘…this is a taser, we’ll take those’. He grabbed one of the boxes and handed it to the female. She was still wearing her motorcycle helmet. The male then picked up the other box and left the area.
Ms Clark could recall that the male was wearing a dark motorcycle helmet, she could not remember his clothing but she thought he was of a slim build and probably about 6 foot tall. When he entered the customer service area he was holding something which was a rectangular shape and was box like. She did not speak to him, she stepped back and allowed him to take whatever he wanted. The female was also wearing a motorcycle helmet, but she did not come into the service desk area.[7]
[7] T59.11-T60.8.
After they left the service desk area, the female robber commenced to walk back towards the front entrance of the store. The male got her attention and redirected her towards the other side of the store and they walked towards the freezer aisle and disappeared down that aisle. The freezer aisle is aisle 15 on Exhibit P1.[8] At that time, view of Ms Clark was not blocked by a room which has now been built and which is disclosed on Exhibit P1. She could see them walking down towards the freezer aisle and turn right into the freezer aisle from where she was standing.[9]
[8] T60.11-.29.
[9] T60.29-T61.10.
Ms Clark said that soon after she saw the two of them turn right and head down the freezer aisle, she heard a fire alarm operate. She knew that one of the fire doors had therefore been opened. The fire door is as indicated on the left hand side of exhibit P1 (if that exhibit is held in landscape). She was aware of the alarm that operated when the fire door was opened. She had heard it previously. The fire door may not be used by public, staff, or anybody else except in the event of an emergency.
The CCTV footage taken at the Gillies Plains store on 1 November 2021 is admitted to evidence as Exhibit P9. This CCTV footage was shown to Ms Clark and she confirmed that it accurately records the two people, the female and the male approaching the service desk, the male entering the customer service area, approaches her, threatens her with the taser and steals the two boxes. Ms Clark was also shown Exhibit P2 which are the still photographs from the CCTV footage. She confirmed that at the time of the male coming into the service desk area and the female was standing outside of that area, she was holding razors in a box. One of the boxes could be seen adjacent to where her feet would be on the photograph, the object that she was looking at was the object which the male told her that was a taser and as a result of all of these events, she was apprehensive and frightened. She backed off from the area towards the store proper and allowed the male to take the second box.
Mrs Emily Lemke, a customer of Woolworths was present outside of the Woolworths after 5pm on 1 November 2021. She thought she arrived there about 5.30 pm. She could not be sure of the time.
After doing her shopping, she went back out to the carpark which fronts onto Blacks Road. She then made observations of what was occurring. She saw two people, a male and a female wearing dark clothes and motorcycle helmets come out of the fire door. The alarm was operating. They were holding two boxes. They got onto a motorbike. She could not really distinguish between the two people on the motorbike. They were still holding the boxes. They had run out of the fire door holding onto the boxes and then jumped onto the motorbike. The female was sitting on the back of the bike. The male was operating the bike. The boxes were brown cardboard boxes and had no particular distinguishing marks on them that she could recall. The motorbike was black. She could not recognise anything in particular that she noticed about the motorcycle.[10]
[10] T65.1-T66.13.
Ms Lemke then saw the motorcycle being driven out of the car park towards Millbank Avenue which runs at the back of the shopping centre and so at the back of the Woolworths store. It runs generally perpendicular to Blacks Road and is another boundary of the shopping centre area.
She observed that the motorcycle only drove about 100 metres. It stopped at a car, a Mitsubishi Magna. The female then dismounted from the motorbike, grabbed the boxes and put them in the back passenger seat driver’s side of the Mitsubishi Magna. That car had been parked on the left hand side of the road on Millbank Avenue. She could see and recall that it was a white Mitsubishi Magna. She observed the female on the back of the motorbike opening the back passenger door of that vehicle. She saw her put the boxes into the car. When they got put the boxes in the car, the female got back onto the bike and then the car drove off.
Mrs Lemke was already on the way to her car by that time. She walked slightly down towards where they were driving out and she took two photos. This was from a point near to the entrance to Millbank Road. She said that she could see the registration number on the Mitsubishi motor vehicle it was S126BNZ. That is what is shown in the photograph of that car that she took. The person sitting on the back of the motorcycle wearing a maroon style top and with a Nike backpack was the female. After taking this photograph, she provided a copy of it to a Woolworths employee who was walking past at the time. That image was later disclosed to the police. It is Exhibit P10.
On Exhibit P11, Mrs Lemke marked with a figure X where she saw the motorbike for the first time outside of the ‘direct to boot’ area. She placed a circle on the photograph, at Millbank Avenue where she first saw the Mitsubishi motor vehicle and she placed a square where she was standing and taking the photograph. She was standing in the car park area.
When she first saw the female, she was coming out of the fire doors. She knew the fire doors were not for public use. The alarm was operating. She recalls that the female was moving fast towards the motorcycle which was within the car park area and reasonably adjacent to the fire door.
As a result of this evidence, I am satisfied that at the time of this robbery, the female was in the company of the male. Both of them were wearing dark coloured clothing but exhibit P10 discloses that the female was wearing a slightly maroon coloured top. The photograph on exhibit P10 shows clearly the registration plate of the white Mitsubishi Magna vehicle, the fact that the motorcycle does not have any registration plate, that the female robber has pink sneakers on as well as carrying a black Nike backpack. The photograph on P10 also shows the hair of the female protruding from under the helmet which is a dark colour. There is a view through the back window of the Magna vehicle. The headrest of the front passenger seat can be seen. There does not appear to be any person within that seat. There is no person in the rear passenger side back seat. There is no person within the rear driver’s side passenger seat. That is where the boxes were put. The clear inference is that there is only a driver in the Mitsubishi Magna vehicle. It is also apparent that there is a connection between the female, the male rider of the motorcycle and the driver of the motor vehicle. So much was apparent from the time that the female placed the two boxes into the rear of the Mitsubishi motor vehicle. That motor vehicle was then seen to drive away.
Other observations were made by other shoppers on that evening. Ms Heidi Beer was a regular customer of the Woolworths Gillies Plains shopping centre. She visited the centre on 1 November 2021 at about 5.30pm and parked in the shopping centre car park which is adjacent to Blacks Road and Millbank Road. After she put her shopping into her motor vehicle, she got into her vehicle to leave the premises. She noticed someone whom she thought was in a Woolworths uniform with his phone out appearing to be filming somebody.[11] She looked in the direction of where that person was filming. She saw two people on a motorbike. They had boxes in their hands. One of the people, sitting on the pillion seat of the motorcycle was a female. She was holding one of the boxes. The person doing the filming whom she saw was identifiable as a Woolworths employee because he was wearing a uniform. She had seen him around the Woolworths premises on a previous occasion. She knew him generally and they exchanged pleasantries from time to time.
[11] T157.1.
Her first thought was that someone had broken into a car in the car park. This was because she could hear an alarm sounding and assumed at the time that it was a car alarm. She can recall seeing the motorcycle, but she cannot really give much of a description of it. She knew that there was a male driving the motorcycle and there was a female on the pillion passanger. She could tell the difference by their body stature.[12] She knew also that the female sitting on the back of the motorcycle was wearing black leggings.
[12] T158.17.
Ms Beer then gave a description of what she could recall of the size of the boxes.[13] She can recall seeing these two people, the male and female get onto the bike holding the boxes, the bike then headed out of the car park towards Millbank Road. It turned right. She saw the motorcycle stop next to the driver’s side of a motor vehicle parked on the side of Millbank Road. That motor vehicle was a white Mitsubishi Magna.
[13] T158.27.
She observed the motorcycle stop and the both the rider and the female put the boxes they were holding into the back passenger seat through the back driver’s side door of that motor vehicle. She can recall that at that time, she saw something drop out of the hands of the female. It was a small rectangular shaped object. By this time, she had driven her car out of the car park and turned right onto Millbank Road. She was delayed because there was traffic turning right into the car park to which she had to give way.
By the time she got out onto Millbank Road and was driving towards the motorcycle and the Magna vehicle, she had observed that the male rider and the female had placed the boxes into the rear driver’s side passenger seat of the vehicle. She drove towards the motorcycle, having seen the small rectangular shaped object fall onto the road. Her intention was to drive her vehicle over the top of whatever it was that had dropped.[14] All the while, she was filming the events through her dash cam. The content of that Navman dash cam footage is exhibit P16. Still photographs taken from the Navman footage are exhibit P17.
[14] T159.7.
After Ms Beer drove up to and attempted to drive across the top of the object which had been dropped by the female, she saw the female get off the motorcycle, pick up the object and walk towards her. Ms Beer was then sounding the horn of her car and was yelling out at the people who were on the motorcycle.
The female got off the motorcycle and picked up the object from the road. At the same time, Heidi Beer opened the door of her car. The female walked straight at her and said: ‘…fuck off or I’ll fucking taser you’.[15] The female then got back onto the motorcycle and it was driven off by the person sitting on the front of the motorcycle who was a male.
[15] T159.16.
Ms Beer was not sure what had fallen onto the ground. She said that she thought it was about ten to fifteen centimetres in length and was of a rectangular shape. She was also able to record all of these events on a working dash cam because the dash cam would automatically turn on when the cars ignition turned on so that it recorded everything she was doing as she was driving including driving out of the Woolworths car park onto Millbank Avenue on that day.
I have closely observed the content of Exhibit P16 and having done so, I have reviewed the content of exhibit P17 which are the still photographs taken from the Navman footage. The first photograph on exhibit P17 taken at 5.10 pm and 24 seconds on 1 November 2021 is the photograph of the motorcycle which is turning right out of the car park onto Millbank Road. The female is sitting on the rear of the motorcycle. She is holding a box. She is wearing a maroon style jacket and has on her back a Nike backpack. The second photograph is of the motorcycle stopped on the driver’s side of the Mitsubishi Magna vehicle. A rear driver’s side door of the Mitsubishi Magna is open. The two feet of the rider of the motorcycle are on the ground. The female remains perched upon the motorcycle. A hand of one of what appears to be the rider of the motorcycle is upon the door of the Mitsubishi Magna. There are no boxes visible in the hands of either the rider of the motor vehicle or the female. Some vision is possible through the rear of the Mitsubishi Magna. There is no evidence of any passenger sitting in the front driver’s side seat or in the rear of that Magna vehicle. The next photograph shows that the Mitsubishi Magna vehicle has driven off. There is a view through the rear window of the vehicle and although slightly oblique, it shows the head of the driver of the vehicle. It also discloses again that there are no other passengers within the Mitsubishi Magna vehicle. This photograph shows an object on the road at the rear of the motorcycle. The brake light of the motorcycle indicates that the brakes are being operated on the motorcycle. The female’s body is turned slightly to the right.
The next photograph shows at least three things. The first that the rider of the motorcycle, the male, is turning backwards and pointing down to the ground. The female is alighting from the motorcycle and has her right leg in the air. Her left leg is on the ground. It is apparent that the rider of the motorcycle is pointing down towards the object on the ground which has been dropped. That object is apparent in the third photograph of exhibit P17 underneath the female’s right foot. It is what has been described as the taser. As well, the red gloves of the rider are apparent. So also are the pink sneakers of the female and the maroon top that she was wearing. The last photograph on exhibit P17 shows the view of the female having mounted the motorcycle and sitting on the pillion passenger. The right foot of the rider of the motorcycle is only slightly above the ground. It is apparent that the rider is driving the motorcycle away from the position. The taser is in the right hand of the female. When the final photograph on exhibit P17 is seen with the footage on exhibit P16, it is apparent that the female is pointing the taser back towards Ms Beer as the driver of the vehicle and is threatening her. At least, it is intended in a way that Ms Beer should understand that the female would use a taser upon her if required.
The balance of exhibit P16, the Navman dash cam footage, shows that Ms Beer pursued the motorcycle for some distance along Millbank Road and then left onto Glenroy Street. She pursued the motorcycle until a major intersection on Glenroy Street. The photographs within exhibit P17 disclose that the motorcycle is black in colour, that there is one exhaust system on the right hand side, it is an elevated exhaust and that there is no registration plate on that vehicle.
This discussion makes it apparent that there are three persons involved in the robbery: the male and female wearing the motorcycle helmets and the third person driving the car. In my view, it is demonstrably clear that the pre-determined arrangement was that the male and the female would rob the store, make their escape on a motorcycle a short distance to where the car was parked and the stolen goods would then off loaded to the car. Each of the participants has a particular and pre-determined role to play in this joint criminal enterprise.
The same male and the female were involved in a second aggravated robbery of a Woolworths store subsequent to their involvement in the robbery at the Woolworths Gillies Plains store. This robbery occurred at around 8 pm on the evening the same day of the same day, 1 November 2021. The robbery took place at the Woolworths store at the Para Hills Shopping Centre. That shopping centre comprises the Woolworths store together with other speciality and minor shops. The site is bounded on one side by Wilkinson Road and the majority of the car parking spaces for the centre are to be found between the buildings and Wilkinson Road. At the rear of the premises, the site is bound by Maves Road. Exhibit P8 discloses the location of the Woolworths Para Hills shop which is at one end of the shopping centre. It is the dominant tenancy of the shopping centre.
Ms Gabrielle Anne Howieson is an employee of Woolworths and on the evening of 1 November 2021, she was working the afternoon shift. She had commenced work at about 12.15 pm and was working at the front end of the store doing customer service. Exhibit P3 is a floorplan of the Woolworths Para Hills store. It discloses the checkouts, the self serve checkouts and the service desk. There are two entrances on either side of the service desk. The service desk is almost equi distant between the two entrances.
Ms Howieson was working in the area of the service desk. This was the self serve express checkout lane. This is identified by a red arrow on exhibit P3 adjacent to the words ‘SERVICE DESK’. Ms Rhiannon Chugg was also working in the same area at the same time on 1 November 2021.
At around 5pm, the store received a delivery of three boxes containing cigarettes. The boxes contained about fifteen to twenty cartons within each box. There were assorted cigarette brands. Each box was of a brown colour with red writing on the side. That writing read: ‘return to Woolworths DC for reuse’. There was security tape on the top and on the bottom of the box. The tape was a white and red colour. The boxes were housed in the service desk area within the store next to the bin and the fire hydrant. It was Ms Howieson’s job to mark off the boxes to ensure that the contents were correctly received.
Ms Howieson said that sometime around 7.45 to 8 pm, she particularly noticed two people walked through the entranceway at the front of the store. These two people were wearing motorcycle helmets and their visors were down. They entered the store through the entrance closest to the service desk. At the time, she noticed them because they were wearing their motorcycle helmets but she went on serving customers.
Ms Howieson said that the next time she saw these two people, they came up to the swing door of the service desk area. She said to the male who was at the front of the pair: ‘sorry, you cannot come in here’. The female, remained behind the male who then spoke to her and told her that he had a taser. He pulled something out from his pocket which made a snapping sound. It was dark in colour, rectangular in shape and she could see lights upon it. The male was wearing a tracksuit with blue piping down the front and on the sleeves. His pants were blue or black. He was wearing dark shoes. The male was tall, about 6 foot 2 inches but she could not see his face or hair. He had a slim build. The male then grabbed the top box sitting by the bin in her area. He handed it to the female who was standing behind him, outside of the service desk area. The male then grabbed the second box but it was empty. He dropped it after realising it was empty. They both then left the store. She said that the pair of them exited the building through the express lanes and went left down the ramp. She watched them until she could not see them anymore.
She can recall that the female was wearing a dark coloured helmet, she had a ponytail and could see hair coming out of her helmet which was blonde or gingery. The female did not step into the service area, she did not speak to her, nor did the male say anything further to her.
After they had left, Ms Howieson called the police. At the time she was scared and shaky. She thought the box that was taken was completely full, being the box of cigarettes that was passed by the male to the female.
Exhibit P5 is a book of photos prepared by the police. It concerns the Mitsubishi Magna vehicle apprehended by the police, driven by the accused Stehbens. Ms Howieson was taken to the photographs on pages 14, 15, 16, 17 and 18 of the exhibit. She was able to recognise the boxes within the photographs as boxes in which the Woolworths supermarkets received cigarette deliveries. She was shown these photographs by Detectives and asked to check off the numbers written on the box against the order listing that she received. She said that the numbers upon the box matched the numbers upon the order listing. The boxes therefore comprised one of the boxes that was taken from the Para Hills store. For example, photograph 28 on the bottom of page 14 discloses invoice number 0004746419 for the Para Hills store. That was a box from which she was taking cigarettes. It was the box that was taken from the store by the male and female robbers.
Ms Howieson also made a copy of the CCTV footage of the incident and provided it to police. That disc containing that CCTV footage is exhibit P6. She was able to identify herself within the service desk area. Part of the film showed her interacting with an employee, Joshua Sabine. She agreed that when she viewed the footage, she could tell that the box she was dealing with was only partially full. Exhibit P4 are still photographs taken from the CCTV footage. After she viewed the photographs and the footage, Ms Howieson agreed that some of the cigarettes had been taken out of the top of the box.
The first photographs of Exhibit P4 showed a still photograph of the service desk area on 1 November 2021 at 7.53 pm. The entrance way may be seen at the top of the photograph. Outside of the entrance way is a verandah and outside of the verandah are the car parks. The building fronts onto Wilkinson Avenue. The entrance way photo shows the female’s legs and feet at the top left hand corner of the photograph when held in landscape. The female wears the same pink sneakers. The next photograph shows Mr Sabine speaking with Ms Howieson at the service desk area. The photograph shows the entrance way and shows the female offender entering the store. The next photograph shows the service desk area, Ms Howieson, the open box of cigarettes and at the entrance way. The feet of the female are then seen further outside of the entrance way and at the outer edge of the verandah.
The next photograph shows the male and the female entering the store. The next photograph shows the male and the female approaching the service desk area and Ms Howieson turning to see what was going on. The female remains wearing the dark helmet, her hair is showing in the same fashion as at the Gillies Plains store and, also as at the Gillies Plains store she is wearing the maroon top. Similarly, the male is wearing the dark blue top and the blue trousers and the blue top has piping around the shoulders. The male is then seen entering the service desk area which was not permitted.
The next photograph, taken at 7.58:52 shows the male holding the taser with which he has threatened Ms Howieson, the offenders holding the box of cigarettes and the male is leaning down to pick up what was the empty box of cigarettes. The next photograph is a better photograph of the previous photograph and shows Ms Howieson with her back to the till, the male holding the taser and leaning down to what is the empty box. The final photograph shows Ms Howieson calling the police. Behind her is the empty box which was left by the male. Ms Howieson was able to identify that the box held by the female had upon it, the writing which she recognised as being within all similar type boxes namely : ‘…Please return to Woolworths DC for re-use’.
Rhiannon Chugg has worked for Woolworths for about 10 years and is an employee with the Para Hills store. On 1 November 2021, she worked at the Para Hills store as a store team manager working in the checkout area. She was working on 1 November and started her shift at around 4.15 pm. She was working in the self serve area of the store and her role was to assist customers in that area which is at the front of the store next to the main service desk. Ms Chugg was shown exhibit P3. She said that by reference to that plan, she was working in the area identified by the arrow pointing to the ‘SELF SERVICE CHECKOUT’. That self serve checkout is closer to the second entrance to the store and not the entrance through which the offenders entered the store.
Ms Chugg was aware that there had been a security delivery on 1 November 2021. The expression security delivery encompasses what she described as a cigarette delivery. That is how a delivery from the distribution centre is identified by the distribution centre. This reflects the limit upon the display of cigarettes and persons who may buy cigarettes according to applicable legislation.
Ms Chugg recalls that shortly before 8 pm on that day, she saw two people wearing motorcycle helmets, one tall and one shorter enter the store. There was a male and a female. Her recollection is that both of those people were wearing black and she recalled them walking past the self service checkout and walking towards the opposite end of the store and then going towards aisle 11 which is identifiable from exhibit P3. It is some distance from the service desk. This is consistent with the first four photographs on exhibit P4. After these two people walked towards aisle 11, Ms Chugg was not sure where they went because she lost sight of them. She was doing her own work at the time. She then saw them again when they were walking back towards the self serve area of the store. She spoke to them. She told them that they must take their helmets off. The male spoke and he told her that they were wearing the helmets for COVID. She then told them that it was illegal to wear the helmets in the store according to Woolworths policy. The female spoke to her and said ‘…fuck off…’.
At the time that she spoke to them, Ms Chugg could recall that the male and the female had their helmet visors down. She could not see their faces clearly. Her interactions with them were quite quick and probably not even over 15 seconds. This interaction occurred about two and five minutes after she first saw these two people entering the store.
Inferentially, these two people then left the store and came back into the store. Ms Chugg can recall sometime later possibly five minutes, she saw the male and the female enter the store again, walk to the entrance and approach the main service counter. This was the service counter in which Ms Howieson was working. She saw them walk into that service area. She recalls seeing the male demanding the boxes that were in that service area but she could not hear anything that was being said. She saw the male hold up something in his right hand which she described as black and square. At the time, she was standing at the assisted checkout area, there was a barrier positioned between the self service area and the main service desk. It was about half of her height. She recalls seeing the male enter the service area holding the object and pointing it towards Ms Howieson. She heard Ms Howieson saying ‘…sorry you cannot be in here…’. When the male entered, she saw that Ms Howieson did not do anything at all but stood still.
Ms Chugg then saw the male pick up one of the boxes of cigarettes which was a concealed box and then pass it to the female. He grabbed at another box. She thought that he took another box with him at the time. When she uses the expression concealed box, she meant a box with no label, namely a plain box. These are the boxes that are used for the delivery of security items such as cigarettes. She watched the male and the female exit the store by the same entrance through which they made entry to the store and she can recall that she was shocked by the incident, was stuck in the moment and felt fear afterwards. She felt pinned to the floor whilst watching the incident.
Earlier in these reasons I identified Mr Sabine. He is the person who is identified in the second photograph of exhibit P4. He is wearing an orange high viz vest. In that photograph he is speaking to Ms Howieson. He was employed at the Para Hills store as a casual front end team member. In November 2021, he was employed as a front end supervisor.
He worked on 1 November 2021 although he cannot recall now what time his shift started. He thought it was the late afternoon to night shift. In that role, he worked around the checkout area but in the period around 7.30 to 8 pm, he would have been outside collecting trolleys.[16] For some reason, his attention was drawn to a motorcycle which entered the car park. He thought that the motorcycle came into the car park in the late evening, just going into night-time. He has a memory of it because it was parked in the disabled car park at the bottom of the ramp which leads up into the Woolworths store. He noticed that the bike was a road bike but it had gold aspects upon its wheels and it had a blue and black paint finish. I asked him how he could describe the bike as being blue and black. He said it was black and blue because it looked like it had paint peeling off. He could see blue below the black on the fairing of the motorcycle, and he recalled that it had gold wheels. His attention was drawn to it, and he more closely looked at it because it was parked in the disabled car park area.
[16] T48.1-49.38.
The bike was parked at the bottom of the ramp leading up into the store. He saw that there was a male and a female riding the motorbike. He thought that the male was wearing just black clothing and a motor bike helmet. He thought that the male was tall. The female was shorter than the male and of medium build. He could not see either of their faces as they were wearing motorbike helmets.
The two people on the motorcycle caught his attention for a second reason. He saw them walking up and down the ramp and he saw one of them looking into cars within the car park. He saw the female looking inside one of the cars in the car park and lean in towards the window and looked inside of the car. He could not recall where the male was at that particular time. He watched the female doing this and then saw her walking back up the ramp and he saw them standing together at the front of the store. He then carried on with his work which was collecting trolleys to bring back inside the store. He was required to ensure that all of the trolleys were brought back into the store overnight. In doing that task, it was necessary for him to bring the trolley up the same ramp that he saw the male and female traverse when they were approaching the entrance to the store.
The next he saw of the male and the female they were walking out of the store. They held a large box and he assumed that it had cigarettes in it. He knew of the delivery of the cigarettes into the store on that day. He saw cigarettes in his line of sight. The two of them were walking out of the store at the time he was walking into the store with his trolleys.
Before he did that, he took photographs of the motorcycle which exhibit P7. The first photograph on exhibit P7 is at the right hand side of the motorcycle. A number of things are immediately apparent. There is an inconsistency of colour upon the motorcycle itself. It is apparent that on the fairing on the front of the motorcycle and underneath the fuel tank, there is a bright blue colour showing. This is at the top edge of the fairing near the ‘chassis’ of the motorcycle. When a comparison is made to the content of exhibit P17 this area is where the rider’s knees would be in position underneath the fuel tank. It is apparent that the dark black colouring upon the motorcycle, from this view, is not the genuine colour and the true colour of the motorcycle is something else.
The same position applies at the area just below the seat of the rider and in the area where the legs of the pillion passenger would stretch down to the footholds for the pillion passenger. That area of paintwork has worn away disclosing a blue area consistent with the colour of the fairing. And on this view of the first photograph, there are areas inside of the fairing near the motor of the motorcycle where there is no darkened colour and the blue colour is obvious. That can be seen in the second photograph on exhibit P7. This gives a better view of the top of the fairing and the area underneath the petrol tank which is contoured for the knees of the rider. The knees of the rider would rub over the top of the fairing and it is apparent that whatever colour is on the fairing now, notionally the black colour has been worn away. This also gives a better view inside of the fairing of the motorcycle which shows the same blue colour. Also, when a close view is taken of the petrol tank, the paint has peeled away leaving a blue colour beneath it. The final photograph on exhibit P7 shows the other side of the motorcycle. The same effect upon the fairing is apparent. This side of the motorcycle operates the gear lever. There is a bright blue section of the motorcycle fairing just above the gear lever. The colour upon the fairing is worn back to the bright blue colour.
When a close view is taken of the first photograph on exhibit P1, the gold colour of the rim and the spokes of the motorcycle wheels are apparent. In my opinion, an inference clearly arises that the colour of the motorcycle as presented in exhibit P7 is not the original colour of the motorcycle, that it has been painted or coloured in some way which is impermanent, that the use of the motorcycle has led to the wearing away of that colour and particularly at those places where there is a connection with the user of the motorcycle. This is also apparent in those places where it would not be possible to paint the motorcycle in a darkened colour. Much of the pealing of paint on the motorcycle has taken place at the connection between it and the body of the rider and the fuel tank. The other points of connection are where the knees of the rider meet the fairing, inside the fairing itself and upon the seat of the rider of the motorcycle.
Senior Constable Rhys Thomas Turner gave evidence.[17] He is currently a member of the South Australian Police and is stationed at Port Adelaide. On 13 September 2021 he was travelling in a police vehicle in company with a Constable Bell. At 7.30 pm on that day, the police vehicle was travelling on Port Road. He thinks that the police vehicle was somewhere in the area around the suburb of Kilkenny and at that time, at about 7.30 pm, he conducted a traffic stop. The vehicle that was stopped was a white Mitsubishi Magna. It was driving in the far-left hand lane on Port Road in an easterly direction towards the city. The vehicle was stopped because the police saw that it had different registration plates on the front and on the back of the vehicle. On the front of the vehicle was a New South Wales registration plate EER91A. On the back of the vehicle, the registration plate was S126BNZ. That numberplate was on the white Mitsubishi motor vehicle observed at the Gillies Plains Shopping centre.
[17] T87-T89.12.
Once the observation had been made that there were different registration plate on the vehicle, the emergency lights on the police vehicle were activated and the Magna was pulled to the side of the road. Constable Turner spoke to the male driver of the motor vehicle and he then confirmed with police sources the correct plate for the vehicle. The correct plate was that which was on the rear of the vehicle, namely S126BNZ.
The driver of the vehicle identified himself as Christopher Mark Allford. Allford provided his name and driver’s licence. At that time, there was a female sitting in the front passenger seat. Constable Turner identified the female as Campbell through the police computer system.
This event took place on 13th September 2021, some six weeks or so prior to the date upon which the robberies took place.
Constable Adrianna Angelina Zotti gave evidence.[18] Constable Zotti has been a police officer for six years and is currently stationed at the Holden Hill Police Station. She was on shift on 1 November 2021 commencing in the afternoon at about 3pm.
[18] T100.1-T105.16.
Constable Zotti attended at the Gillies Plains Shopping Centre following the report of a robbery at that centre. She walked into the rear security office in order to speak with Sergeant Smith who she knew was already on the scene. When she walked into the security office, she saw that Sergeant Smith was already looking at still photographs of the CCTV footage from the Gillies Plains Woolworths. He informed her that she was not required on scene and so she returned to her duties. When she was looking at the still photographs she saw a white Mitsubishi Magna on the screen and identified the registration number as S126BNZ. Having made those observations, she left the Gillies Plains Shopping Centre and resumed her normal police duties.
Later on in that evening, Constable Zotti was on patrol duties. She was positioned at the corner of Walkley’s Road and Wright Road at Ingle Farm. At that intersection, she saw a white Mitsubishi Magna vehicle with registration number S126BNZ turn right onto Wright Road. She followed that vehicle over Nelson Road and left onto Charmaine Avenue. The vehicle made a right turn onto Montague Road and then very quickly turned left into a service station there. At the time, Constable Zotti was communicating by the police radio that she had located the vehicle and that she was following it. This occurred about 8.45 pm and she followed the vehicle for at least ten minutes by that time. She thought first saw the vehicle about 10 minutes earlier at around 8.30 pm.
When the Magna vehicle turned into the service station, she activated the lights of the police vehicle, the driver exited the vehicle and he approached the driver’s side door of the police vehicle. She got out of the police vehicle, told the driver to step back from the police vehicle and asked for identification. She was not given identification but he told her that his name was Nathan Troy Stehbens. She asked him how he came to be in the vehicle which, according to police records he did not own. He then told her that he had just purchased the car from someone called ‘Tom’ about one hour earlier. He did not say where he had purchased that car. In cross-examination Stehbens later accepted that this answer to Constable Zotti was a lie.
Shortly afterwards, other police arrived and she did not have any further conversation with him at that time until after the Crime Investigation Branch had investigated the vehicle. She was present when the vehicle was searched and she observed boxes being taken out of the boot of the vehicle. She described them as cardboard shipping boxes about 30 to 60 cms wide and about 20 cms deep. She did not get a really good look at them. Those boxes are shown on exhibit P19 although this photograph was taken sometime later at the police compound.
Constable Zotti apprehended Stehbens about ten minutes after first seeing him and she agreed that his demeanour when he approached her vehicle was compliant, he was happy to speak with her and was quite calm. In his evidence, Stehbens said that he had consumed at least three points of methamphetamine on that day.
Mr Toby Clair is a member of the South Australian Police Force currently stationed at the Crime Scene Investigation Section of the Norwood Police Station. On 3 November 2021, he was tasked to attend the Ottoway Exhibit Property Complex at the South Australian Police. He arrived there at about 4.25 pm. He was requested to examine a white 2001 Mitsubishi Magna sedan registration S126BNZ. He took a series of photographs of the vehicle. They are admitted into evidence and comprise exhibit P5. Photographs 1-8 inclusive are photographs of the rear of the vehicle. It is noteworthy that the front registration plate of the vehicle shows S126BNZ which plainly enough had been added since the vehicle was stopped by police on 23 September 2021 on Port Road in the Kilkenny area.
Photograph nine is the driver’s seat. There is a large amount of paper on the floor under the driver’s seat. These appear to be some from of tickets such as parking station tickets or the like. In photograph ten, the centre console, gearstick and associated areas are visible. In the centre console is a soft drink can and an orange juice bottle which are more visible in photographs twelve and thirteen. Photograph thirteen also shows that in the footwell of the passenger side that there are a number of boxes, pieces of plastic and cellophane and other drink cans. There is other assorted rubbish. Constable Clair said that he placed barcodes on the solo can and the juice bottle to indicate that he had taken DNA swabs from those items.
He then looked in the ashtray of the vehicle and could identify two cigarette butts and a fifty-cent coin. The cigarette butts were tested for DNA.
Photograph sixteen is a photograph of the back seat of the vehicle. It contains a large amount of rubbish and it also identifies that there are a number of clothes and other household items within the area of the back seat. There is a red carton containing goods which are otherwise unidentifiable. There is a sealed plastic bag. Beneath the material on the seat is an amount of other rubbish which cannot be identified from the photographs. Photographs seventeen, eighteen and nineteen are better views of both the backseat and the front passenger side seat of the vehicle. Photograph seventeen and nineteen shows that there are a number pieces of clothing on the back seat. These comprise a pink top and jeans, other pairs of jeans, a red bag, Nike trousers and other items of clothing. Although it is not necessary to make any particular findings on the point, the pink jumper appears to be that of a female. The impression gained by looking at the photographs is that someone has thrown a large amount of their clothing and other personal goods into the back of the motor vehicle. Photograph twenty is consistent with that impression. The footwell of the vehicle on the front passenger side which is disclosed in image twenty on exhibit P5 shows women’s shoes, what appears to be a perfume box, cartons, another drink can, other empty drink containers, a container with a pink circle on the top, other cartons and general associated rubbish including cellophane and plastic wrapping. On the seat, there is a mobile phone, a face mask, a container and sunglasses.
Photograph eight discloses the contents of the boot of the vehicle. On the right hand side is another plastic bag, the contents of which are not disclosed. In the middle is another plastic crate which appears to contain clothing. On the top of the crate is a blue top and white piping is visible. Within the crate there appears to be further items of clothing.
On the left hand side are cardboard boxes crushed and folded into the boot area. Photographs 21, 22, 23 and 24 show where the vehicle has been dusted for fingerprints and photographs 25 and 26 show further photographs of items located within the vehicle. In photograph 21, there is a blue sticker, a close up photograph which is shown in image 22. This is a identification of a fingerprint on the rear driver’s side passenger door. The items found on the driver’s seat in photograph 9 were moved around throughout the car as the search was conducted. That search was conducted by another police officer, not Officer Clair.
Officer Clair did not examine the pieces of plastic found in the front footwell of the vehicle which are the subject of photographs 12. He took general photographs of them before they were moved. These photographs are of the items visible on image 13 on page 7 of exhibit P5. He confirmed that only two cigarette butts were found in the vehicle and he could not tell when they were smoked. He would not know whether they were recent or old.
The very clear impression from the photographs of the vehicle and of its contents is that someone was living within the vehicle or alternatively was being used to transport their personal possessions.
A search of the items taken from the vehicle disclose an identification card of Allford which is disclosed on photograph 37. Also found within the vehicle was a sim card to be activated, correspondence addressed to Campbell at 93 Oxford Street Hillcrest from the Government of South of Australia Fines Enforcement and Recovery Unit and a business card from Mr Motorcycle Dismantlers. The name upon the business card was a Mr Mark Reed. Photograph 38 shows plastic packaging in the rear footwell of the vehicle after the other material in the vehicle had been removed. A portion of that material is what appears to be a woman’s make up set and other similar personal belongings. Photographs 38 and 39 are close up photographs of this material and photograph 39 also shows an empty cigarette packet. Photograph 40 shows a notebook on the passenger seat. Photograph 51 shows a photograph of plastic packaging. Photograph 52 shows a close up view of that plastic packaging in the front footwell. Other items, such as the woman’s shoes, the packaging of what appears to be a bottle of perfume and other detritus are also seen. When a view is taken of image 12 on page 6 of exhibit P5 and a proper view is taken of the console behind the gearstick, it is apparent that there is a bottle of perfume within a recess in the console.
At the time of his arrest, the telephone in the possession of Stehbens was seized by police. Police officer Leon Rusak was involved in the investigation of the two robberies. He was asked to review the phone of Stehbens on 25 November 2021 by his supervising officer, Daniel Parish. He was aware that the phone was obtained from the possession of Stehbens and he concluded his review by 10.10 am on that day, it having commenced at 8.40 am. The phone was then placed into that evidence locker at the police station. During his review of the phone, he did not make any phone calls using the phone.[19] Nobody else accessed the phone or assisted him in reviewing the phone.[20] The phone did not leave his possession during the time of that review and he did not review the phone in company with other police officers. In his search of the phone, he was looking for phone numbers including the phone number of a co accused. He went through the messages and phone calls to see what messages might have been sent and what numbers might have been used. He took some notes regarding a contact identified as ‘Cris and Amy’ from the call register. There were some calls and many missed calls to that number. There was another number that corresponded with that number which said ‘we are on the bike’.[21] He had no reason to believe that he had accidently made a phone call on the phone. I accept that he did not make such a phone call. I therefore reject that suggestion as a reasonable possibility.
[19] T178.18.
[20] T178.
[21] T181.6-.7.
Brevet Sergeant Luke Bradley Ryan was stationed at the Eastern District Intelligence Section in November 2021 and commenced work at about midday. During his shift, he received information about robberies that occurred at the Woolworths stores earlier that week. He saw internal email reports in relation to them. He had no personal involvement in the investigation of those matters which were being handled by other police officers.
In the course of viewing this material, he saw still photographs of CCTV material about the motorcycle used in the robberies. He described the motorbike as looking like a sports bike, it had a large exhaust and gold or yellow coloured rims. He really could not recall anything else distinctive about the bike and on the CCTV images he saw, the bike looked to be black in colour.
On 6 November 2021 after finishing his shift at around 8.30 pm, he got out of his uniform and started driving home. He was driving along the North East Road and he observed a motorcycle at about the time he was near to the Highlander Hotel in Gillies Plains. He thought that was the motorcycle he had seen earlier in his shift in the still photographs of the CCTV material.
The motorcycle he saw was of a similar style and size to the one in the CCTV stills, hearing a similar exhaust system and the same gold or yellowish coloured rims. He saw that there was a rider and a pillion passenger. The two riders on the bike matched the description of the riders who had been involved in the robberies.
He then maintained observations on the bike and got a better view of the rider and the pillion passenger. He thought that the pillion passenger was of a medium build and due to her body shape that she was a female. She was wearing a black sports bag backpack of a Nike brand. He thought that she was wearing a red and white patterned motorcycle helmet. He was not able to make much of an observation of the rider and could not do so until much later. The motorcycle was of a dark blue colour.
He saw the motorbike turn right off of North East Road onto Lowan Avenue. Exhibit P12 is a google map of that area. It was marked by Brevet Sergeant Ryan during the time that he gave evidence. Point A, on North East Road is the point at which the motorcycle was sighted by Brevet Sergeant Ryan. Lowan Avenue is marked with ‘B’. Brevet Sergeant Ryan maintained observations of the motorcycle once it had turned right from North East Road onto Lowan Street. He observed that the motorcycle seemed to wobble as if the rider was having difficulty controlling it or there was some other mechanical issue. It then stopped on the northern side of Lowan Avenue. Brevet Sergeant Ryan drove past the motorcycle and at the time, observed the male rider fiddling with the side of the motorcycle; it looked like he was trying to fix something. He made some observations of the male. He thought the male was somewhere over six feet tall wearing a black or dark coloured motorcycle helmet.
Brevet Sergeant Ryan then turned right onto Valiant Road and headed south. He then executed a U-turn on Valiant Road to go back towards the motorcycle. He then saw it travelling towards his vehicle on Valiant Road. Where he saw the motorcycle upon Valiant Road is marked with the letter ‘C’ on exhibit P12. At that time he lost sight of the motorcycle. He said that he then drove around the area generally. Eventually, he saw the motorcycle again on Malcolm Avenue which is five streets from Valiant Road and runs parallel with Valiant Road. Elliott Avenue runs between Valiant Road and Malcolm Avenue. Exhibit P12 is marked with the letter ‘D’ which is where he saw the motorcycle again. When he saw the motorcycle, it was stationary and the pillion passenger had dismounted from the motorcycle. She was standing next to the bike but he could not be sure what the rider and pillion passenger were then doing.
He went past the motorcycle and then saw it one more time. By that time he had turned off Malcolm Avenue and had driven down a street called The Parkway back towards North East Road and Valiant Road. He then saw the bike on Elliott Avenue near to its intersection with Valiant Road. At the time, both the passenger and the rider were off the motorcycle. It looked like they were attempting to fix the bike. He learned that these two people later identified themselves to police. The passenger was Campbell and the rider was Allford. He made observations of the pillion passenger. She seemed angry or agitated at the time. He could not see the faces of the rider or the passenger. He could only make observations of the physical behaviour of the passenger even though she had a helmet on. Brevet Sergeant Ryan then made a mark on the map on Elliott Avenue, marked ‘E’ where he last saw the motorcycle.
By that time, he had been following the bike for about ten minutes and during this period, he made contact with police about sighting the motorcycle and the locations where he had seen it. On request from me, he marked with a letter ‘X’ where he finally saw the motorcycle on Elliott Avenue. This was near to the intersection between Elliott Avenue and The Parkway. The issue that came to his attention from what he had seen from the still photographs was the dark motorbike, the male rider and the female pillion passenger and that there was no registration plate upon the motorcycle.
Detective Brevet Sergeant Kristen Georgiou is currently stationed at the Eastern District Criminal Investigation Branch and on 6 November 2021 he was on shift which started around 3 pm. He was tasked to attend Elliott Avenue in Holden Hill relating to the arrest of Allford and Campbell. He had no prior involvement in any investigation. He understood that Allford and Campbell were suspects in relation to a number of aggravated robberies.
He arrived at Elliott Avenue at about 10 pm in company with Brevet Sergeant Elliott. They arrived near to the corner of Elliott Avenue and Waninga Drive at Holden Hill. He saw there two people under arrest. A camera had been activated. The two people were Allford and Campbell. Other police were on the scene. He was informed of the identify of Campbell and Allford upon his arrival.
Detective Brevet Sergeant Georgiou has no clear memory of what Allford was wearing at the time. He was wearing shoes. He cannot recall what Campbell was wearing at the time. When he arrived, Campbell was sitting on the kerb side of the road. Allford was also sitting on the kerb but some distance from her.
Detective Brevet Sergeant Georgiou then saw some property in the front yard of 27 Elliott Avenue. He took photographs; they comprise Exhibit P13. The first photograph is of a red and white motorcycle helmet. The second photograph is of some bags and a white and blue motorcycle helmet. The third photograph is of a light coloured bag. The fourth photograph is of a white and blue helmet and a bag. The fifth photograph is of the helmet with the bag underneath. The sixth photograph is of the bag opened and some of the contents showing. The contents comprise clothing. The eighth photograph is of the registration plate of the motorcycle. It came out of the light coloured backpack shown on photograph 6 of exhibit P13. Photographs 13-16 are the black sneakers seized from Allford.
One of the consistent features of these and other photographs taken are of the Mitsubishi Magna motor vehicle is that there is a large amount of clothing within the car and within these bags.
Detective Brevet Sergeant Georgiou then collected up these bags that were associated with Allford and Campbell, and in company with another police officer, took them to the Adelaide City Watch house. He was told by another police officer that the darker coloured bags were those of Allford. Brevet Sergeant Elliott then took photographs of some of the items seized by police at 27 Elliott Avenue which he then provided to Detective Brevet Sergeant Georgiou. The items seized and items photographed were then logged into the police property management system by a different officer, Brevet Sergeant Stevanovic.
I am satisfied that I am in a position to draw and I do draw the inference that the Mitsubishi Magna motor vehicle used in the Gillies Plains robbery was also used in the Para Hills robbery. In so doing, I have relied upon each of the following strands of evidence and their combined weight. They are: the similarities of the robbery of the Gillies Plains store and the Para Hills store; the tape on each of the boxes; the invoice numbers and markings upon those boxes; the location of all three of those boxes within the boot of the Mitsubishi Magna motor vehicle which had been identified as that vehicle that was used in the Gillies Plains robbery, the location by police of that same vehicle within half an hour or so of the Para Hills robbery; and the location of the boxes within the boot of the vehicle. In my view, that inference was so strong that I am satisfied of its proof beyond reasonable doubt. This is an intermediate fact which I do find proved beyond reasonable doubt.
I am therefore satisfied that the prosecution has established beyond reasonable doubt based upon the inferences that I have been prepared to draw and based upon the intermediate facts that I am satisfied have been proved beyond reasonable doubt and the other strands of circumstantial evidence that I find proved that the two offenders one of whom was Campbell on the motorcycle committed both robberies, that they delivered the stolen goods to the same Mitsubishi Magna motor vehicle on both occasions and made their escape. I am also therefore satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that the only rational and logical inference to be drawn in those circumstances is that the male offender and Campbell who rode the motorcycle and the driver of the Mitsubishi Magna motor vehicle were in a joint criminal enterprise together in respect of both robberies. I have reached that conclusion after a dispassionate, objective and accurate assessment of all of the evidence and the arguments put to me. I have reached that conclusion notwithstanding that the use of the motor vehicle was for the purpose of collecting and transporting the stolen goods.
I find proved beyond reasonable doubt that there was an agreement between the offenders on the motorcycle and the driver of the Mitsubishi Magna motor vehicle to commit the offences of aggravated robbery as part of a joint criminal enterprise. I am satisfied on the evidence that the robbery was planned. The methodology was the same. The male offender and Campbell intended to rob the Woolworths stores of boxes of cigarettes. At the first store at Gillies Plains, the plain and obvious intention was that each of the offenders would hold a box as they left the premises, they would mount the motorcycle, the motorcycle riders would need to be dispose of the boxes of cigarettes as quickly as possible because it would not be possible for boxes of cigarettes to be carried for very long upon a motorcycle being used by a rider and a pillion passenger. There needed to be a vehicle parked near to the store so that the boxes could be offloaded into that vehicle. This was no mere theft.
I am satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that the clear inference arises that the intention of the male and female offenders was to take boxes of cigarettes by force. These were the boxes that were deposited into the Mitsubishi Magna motor vehicle. It is a nonsense, in my view, to postulate as a reasonable possibility that those boxes could be carried very far from those stores on a motorbike. It was necessary for another motor vehicle or another means, to be available near to the scenes of the robberies so that the boxes of cigarettes could be offloaded into that vehicle and an escape made by both the motor vehicle and the motorcycle. In order to execute such a plan, and to rob the Woolworths stores of this material, it was plainly obvious, that force was required, that more than one person was needed to carry the stolen goods from the store, that a vehicle needed to be parked nearby into which those stolen goods could be deposited and both vehicles, the motorcycle and the motor vehicle make their escape.
I am therefore satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that in relation to both robberies, each offender played a role and each offender participated in a joint agreement to commit an aggravated robbery. Whilst that plan was on foot, the male offender and Campbell dressed as they were, entered the Woolworths stores, committed the offences, exited the stores, handed over the boxes that were stolen from the Woolworths store into the Mitsubishi Magna vehicle driven by the third party to the joint enterprise.
All parties agreed the essential issue before me for my decision was the identity of the male rider of the motorcycle and the driver of the Mitsubishi Magna. I have already said that the faces of the male and female offenders in the stores could not be identified because they were wearing motorcycle helmets. Photographs are available of these two offenders. The male is a larger man and Campbell has a smaller build. Campbell has blonde/gingery hair protruding from her motorcycle helmet; that is the colour of her hair.
The clothing worn by each offender at each Woolworths supermarket is the same. The motorcycle helmets, the maroon top and dark pants worn by the female offender, the dark blue top with white piping worn by the male offender and the dark pants and shoes. At the time of the offence, the male offender was wearing dark coloured sneakers. At the time of his arrest, Allford was found in possession of black coloured sneakers.
In relation to the question of identification of Allford as the offender with Campbell, I consider that the following evidence is vital to the process of my decision making.
On 13 December 2021, about six weeks before the offending, Constable Turner, conducted a traffic stop of the Mitsubishi Magna on Port Road near Kilkenny. At the time, that vehicle had a South Australian number plate on the rear and a New South Wales number plate on the front of the vehicle.
Allford was the driver and Campbell was the passenger in the motor vehicle. After that vehicle was apprehended by police on 1 November 2021, cigarette butts were identified within the ashtray of the vehicle. They were tested for DNA and Campbell’s DNA was located on a cigarette butt and Allford’s on another butt in the ashtray. Her fingerprints were located on a passenger side door and window of the vehicle. A letter addressed to her was also found in the car. Also found within the car, was an identification in the name of Allford. There was also a cigarette butt with his DNA on it within the same car. In the passenger side footwell of the car there was plastic packaging on all of this evidence has not been possible to identify whether that plastic packaging came from any package of cigarettes. However, the fingerprints of Allford were found upon the plastic packaging in that area of the car. It links Allford to that car.
As I have earlier recounted, the three boxes from the two Woolworths stores were located in the boot of that car. Allford’s fingerprints are located on different parts of the box from the Para Hills store. That box links the same Mitsubishi Magna to the offending at the Para Hills store. The boxes from the Gillies Plains store link that vehicle to the Gillies Plains robbery. The presence of Stehbens in the car at the time of his arrest link him with the vehicle to both of the robberies.
The evidence given by Allford was that he touched those boxes after about 8 pm on 1 November 2021. He gave a version of events that Campbell came to a house where he happened to be, offered cigarettes for him to purchase and in order for him to have a look at what was in the box, he took hold of the box. His evidence was that this occurred at about 8 pm on 1 November 2021. I have earlier rejected this evidence as a reasonable possibility. I consider it to be a completely fallacious concoction for the following reasons. If those events happened, it would be necessary for Campbell to have met up somewhere with the Magna vehicle after the Para Hills offending. She left the Para Hills store on a motorcycle at 8 pm. Allford said that she had attended the house at about 8 pm on that night whilst driving the Mitsubishi Magna vehicle. He did not see anyone else with her at the time. The house belonged to Nikki.
Therefore, at that same time as the Para Hills robbery occurred and at some place Campbell had to have taken over driving of the Mitsubishi Magna vehicle and she would then have had to drive around to Nikki’s house where Allford was present. She would need to sell the cigarettes and although she was there for some time, estimated at about ten minutes, she was there at about 8 pm. That was at the same time or minutes after the robbery occurred at the Para Hills store. She would then have to get back to Sussex Court where, on his version, Stehbens had attended to collect that car, hand over the car to Stehbens, Stehbens would then have to drive from Sussex Court in Oakden to the Coles Express in Modbury all within about 30 to 35 minutes in order for police to follow him at around 8:30 pm and then arrest him at around 8:45 pm.
That version of events is so lacking in credibility it is fanciful. I reject entirely the account of Allford about how he says his fingerprints came to be on the boxes because it cannot fit within the timeframes when all of these events are known to have occurred, between the robbery at Para Hills store occurring and Stehbens being located in the Mitsubishi vehicle that night.
I therefore reject any innocent explanation or the explanation offered by Allford about how his fingerprints could end up on a box stolen from the Para Hills Woolworths in the same vehicle which was proven to have received the boxes stolen from Woolworths Gillies Plains store and in which the very boxes stolen from those supermarkets was located. I am satisfied beyond reasonable doubt from all of the evidence that the Para Hills box had Allford’s fingerprints upon it, there was plastic packaging within the vehicle with Allford’s fingerprints upon it, his identification card was within the Mitsubishi Magna vehicle, he had a continuous association with that vehicle from at least September 2021until 1 November 2021.
I am satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that the version of events given by Allford of his whereabouts on the evening of 1 November 2021 lacks any credibility. I am satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that Allford had an active association with the Magna vehicle, Stehbens and Campbell on the evening of 31 October 2021 and the morning of 1 November 2021. They were well known to each other. I am also satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that Allford and Stehbens text discloses planning together for the both of them to participate in an activity on that day.
I am satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that there were constant communications between them throughout 31 October and earlier on 30 October. Although I do not need to make a finding on the point, the only evidence of Stehbens that I find has some credibility is that he was at the house of ‘Nikki’ in the days or hours leading up to 1 November. At some stage Allford and Campbell were at that house but it is unclear if they were at that home together.
I am satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that both Stehbens and Allford consumed a large amount of methylamphetamine on 31 October and 1 November 2021. In the afternoon of 1 November 2021 the Magna vehicle reg S126BNZ was driven by Stehbens; he took his drink bottle into the car; and he was apprehended in the car within 45 minutes of the second robbery. By that time the three boxes stolen from the two stores had been emptied, flattened and placed into the boot of the Magna. It was not physically possible for Campbell to have separately brought the boxes of cigarettes to Nikki’s house at around 8 pm that night in that vehicle; to have stayed to negotiate the sale of cartons of cigarettes; to have left that house and driven to wherever Stehbens might have been; and crush the boxes, give the car to Stehbens who drove off but was followed for 10 minutes prior to being apprehended in that car. None of this a reasonable possibility.
I am satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that the only reasonable inference arising from the evidence is that Campbell, Stehbens and Allford were together involved in a joint criminal enterprise to rob and they did rob the two Woolworths stores on that day.
In relation to Allford, the compelling evidence is his prior relationship with Campbell who was the female offender, the connection between Allford and Stehbens and then between both of them and Campbell through the phone and text communications of 30, 31, October and 1 November 2021; the involvement of a driver of the Magna vehicle on that day and the sighting of Stehbens in that car within about 30 minutes of the second robbery the identification of the boxes from the Woolworths stores in the boot of that vehicle which then connected the fingerprints of Allford on one of them that three boxes were found emptied, crushed, and placed in the boot of that car; the ongoing relationship between Allford and Campbell prior to 30 October 2021 on 31 October and on 1 November 2021 and on 6 November 2021 when they were both apprehended, and the DNA evidence linking all of Allford, Stehbens and Campbell to the vehicle. These latter pieces of DNA evidence are only strands of circumstantial evidence. That importance is only that they tie all these people to the vehicle that I am satisfied was used in each of the robberies in the same way.
I reject Stehbens account given to the police that he had purchased that Magna motor vehicle an hour before he was located by police. He has admitted that version of events is a lie. I have found, as is the case, that version given to the police is a lie. I have used these lies only on the question of the assessment of the credibility of Stehbens.
I have made findings that the version of events given by Allford is not a truthful, credible or reliable. I have accepted that the version given by Stehbens to the police was a lie and that the evidence given by him in this court was not truthful, credible or reliable.
I have not used the conclusions that I have reached that each of those accused told lies as evidence of their guilt. However, I am satisfied that the lies told by each of the accused affects my assessment of the truth of what the accused have said in their evidence even though it does not of itself add to the prosecution evidence. I repeat my earlier direction to myself that even if I reject all of the evidence of each accused, I must carefully assess whether the prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt. That is the process in which I have been involved. That is the approach that I have taken in reaching my conclusion.
I also accept that Stehbens lied to the police on the night of 1 November 2021. This is a piece of circumstantial evidence which I may use in assessing his credibility. That includes about what he did that evening and his denial of the offending. I have found that the story that he gave about how he came in to be in possession of the car is completely unsustainable and is neither credible, reliable or truthful. Stehbens was found in the Mitsubishi Magna vehicle around half an hour after the robbery at Para Hills Woolworths. At the time that vehicle was stopped, the stolen boxes from both the Gillies Plains Woolworths and the Para Hills Woolworths stores were within the boot of that vehicle. In my opinion, the presence of Stehbens in the car with those pieces of evidence is only consistent with his involvement in both robberies and he was to drive the car away after the boxes of cigarettes were deposited in the car by the others. I accept that there can be no other genuine explanation for his location by police at 8:45 pm on 1 November 2021 whilst driving a Mitsubishi Magna motor vehicle which contained within it the stolen boxes which also contain Allford’s fingerprints. The only reasonable explanation is he was involved in the robberies as the driver of the Magna. I am therefore satisfied that this further intermediate fact has been proved to my satisfaction beyond reasonable doubt.
The evidence satisfied me that same plan was executed for each robbery involving the theft of the same type of product, using the same people, in the ‘same type’ of stores, the same escape upon a motorcycle and the necessary involvement of a third party.
I am satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that the third party was Stehbens. He had a clear connection to the two people most heavily associated with the car (Allford and Campbell), he was in contact with them by phone calls and texts leading to the 1 November 2021; he was in possession of the vehicle seen at the Gillies Plains robbery earlier that day and that vehicle can be identified by the registration plate from the exhibits; the involvement of that vehicle and its driver is seen within the exhibits; he was detected in possession of that same vehicle within 30-35 minutes of the Para Hills robbery. At the time of his apprehension, police located in the boot of the vehicle each of the three boxes which had been taken from the two stores. By the time of his apprehension there had been sufficient time for the robbers to dispose of the contents of the boxes, crush the boxes and hide them in the boot of the car and for the robbers to separately make their way.
I have now canvassed in detail all of the evidence. I am satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that the female offender was Campbell. I am satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that the male offender accompanying Campbell in the actual robbery of the two stores was Allford. I have reached that conclusion based upon all of the evidence and in particular the following matters:-
By no later than September 2021, Allford and Campbell were in a relationship.
From September 2021, Allford and Campbell had a continuous association with the Magna motor vehicle.
From a time prior to November 2021 Allford had the use of and did use a Honda motorcycle as one of his means of transport.
Throughout their relationship Allford and Campbell were heavy users of methylamphetamine and associated with people who were also heavy users of that drug.
In the period 30 October 2021 to 1 November 2021, Allford and Campbell were in company with one another although, at times, the relationship was fragile.
Campbell, Allford and Stehbens were well known to one another and that had been the case for many months prior to 30 October 2021. During that time they had shared drugs and had transacted the sale of drugs with each other.
On 30 and 31 October 2021, there were exchange of text messages between Allford’s phone and Stehbens’phone about their plan to ‘…do that thing…’ and the readiness of Stehbens.
From 31 October to 1 November 2021, there was an increased level of telephone calls and messages between Stehbens phone and Allfords phone. These messages included identifying where each of them were on a particular day. There had earlier been messages that (Allford) and (Campbell) were ‘…on the bike…’ disclosing that Stehbens was aware of the fact that (Allford) and (Campbell) were using a motorcycle.
Throughout 1 November 2021, messages passed between Allford’s phone and Stehbens phone and a phone call was made by Stehbens to Campbell’s phone after 6 pm that evening. This was after the robbery at the Gillies Plains Woolworths store.
The Gillies Plains Woolworths store was robbed by Campbell and a male at about 3:48 pm on 1 November 2021. They escaped on a motorcycle after handing the stolen items into the Magna sedan driven by Stehbens. The motorcycle did not have a numberplate. On that day, upon police search, the Magna contained the personal effects of Campbell and Allford. In particular, there was an identification card belonging to Allford, a cigarette but carrying the DNA of Allford, a cigarette but carrying the DNA of Campbell and the car exterior carried the fingerprints of Campbell. The interior of the car indicated that it was being used to carry a large proportion of the personal belongings of at least a female person.
At 7:59 pm on 1 November 2021, Campbell and a male robbed the Para Hills Woolworths store of one box of cigarettes. They made their escape from the store on the same motorcycle which still did not have a numberplate.
At around 8:30 pm on the same night, the police identified the Magna vehicle driving on a suburban road. It was followed for about ten minutes and was stopped at 8:45 pm. The driver of the vehicle was Stehbens.
At the time that Stehbens was apprehended the vehicle boot contained three boxes stolen from the two Woolworths stores. The box for the Para Hills Woolworths store carried the fingerprints of Allford on both sides. Inside the vehicle was a cigarette butt carrying the DNA of Allford and plastic found on the floor of the front passenger side of that vehicle carried the fingerprint of Allford.
The boxes found in the boot of the vehicle had been emptied and crushed down to fit a space in the boot of the vehicle. I am satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that at least in relation to the Para Hills store box, Allford was involved in the process of crushing down the box to fit it into the boot of the vehicle.
Five days later, Allford and Campbell were arrested whilst riding a motorcycle which did not bear a number plate. One of the plates for that vehicle was found in one of Campbell’s bags at the time of their arrest.
At the time of their arrest, each of Allford and Campbell were carrying backpacks containing personal clothing and also a spare motorcycle helmet.
In relation to the accused Stehbens, I am satisfied on the evidence of the following matters beyond reasonable doubt.
As at October 2021, Stehbens, Campbell and Allford were well known to one another. They supplied and shared drugs with one another.
As at October 2021, Stehbens knew of the association between Campbell and Allford and the white Mitsubishi Magna motor vehicle.
On 30 and 31 October 2021, there were drug transactions occurring between Campbell and Stehbens. At the same time, there was an elevated level of phone and message contact between Allford’s phone and Stehbens phone. I am satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that they were contacting each other by phone and by text message.
The exchange of text messages from Allford’s phone to Stehbens phone on 30-31 October 2021 included an enquiry of Stehbens and whether he is ‘…ready to do that thing…’ Stehbens responds that he is ‘ready Wn U R bro’, ‘that thing’ is a form of code used so as not to identify something about which Allford did not wish to make disclosure. Stehbens understood the message and indicated his readiness.
In the morning of 1 November 2021, Stehbens had purchased a bottle of juice. He had that bottle with him when he collected the white Magna vehicle from Campbell. He knew it was a vehicle associated with Campbell.
In the evening of 1 November 2021, there was a one minute phone call between Stehbens and Allford’s phone after the first robber and shortly before the second robbery. Subsequent to that phone call Stehbens phone two other Woolworths stores and had a conversation lasting several minutes with someone at the Tea Tree Plaza store.
At about 4 pm on 1 November the white Mitsubishi Magna vehicle parked outside of the Gillies Plains Woolworths store.
After robbing the Gillies Plains store Campbell and Allford made their exit and handover to the Mitsubishi vehicle of the stolen property. Then the vehicle was driven away.
Later that evening, Stehbens rang Allford at around 6 pm and shortly afterwards, at about 7 pm he rang two other Woolworths stores from his mobile phone.
At around 8:45 pm on the night of 1 November 2021, Stehbens was stopped by police whilst driving in the Magna motor vehicle. This was very soon after the robbery at the Para Hills store. He lied to police about where he had obtained the vehicle. I am satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that he obtained the vehicle from Allford and Campbell.
In the vehicle boot, police identified three crushed boxes, two of which came from the robbery at the Gillies Plains Woolworths store and one of which came from the robbery at the Para Hills Woolworths store. In the vehicle was a drink bottle on which the DNA of Stehbens was detected. As well, there were two cigarette butts which separately carried the DNA of Campbell and Allford. Allford’s fingerprints were found on a piece of plastic on the floor in front of the front passenger seat of the vehicle. All three of them are linked to the vehicle on that day 1 November 2021. Allford and Campbell are linked to that vehicle from September 2021.
I am satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that in relation to the first robbery Stehbens was the driver of the car and was involved in a joint criminal enterprise with Campbell and Allford. I am further satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that in relation to the Para Hills Woolworths store robbery, Stehbens was the driver of the getaway vehicle that received the stolen box of cigarettes and that he acted in a joint criminal enterprise in so doing with Campbell and Allford.
I am satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that at least Allford was involved in crushing and placing the boxes into the boot of that vehicle. I am satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that the only inference that arises from the evidence is the involvement of Stehbens, Allford and Campbell in a joint criminal enterprise to rob the Woolworths Gillies Plains and Woolworths Para Hills store.
I am satisfied beyond reasonable doubt of each of the strands of circumstantial evidence that must be proved as intermediate facts. I am similarly satisfied of proof of the other strands of circumstantial evidence.
In reaching my conclusions, I have adopted the approach that the credit findings that I have made in relation to the evidence given by each of the accused Allford and Stehbens does not preclude in anyway the necessity to make findings about whether the prosecution has proved beyond reasonable doubt the elements upon which it bears the onus of proof.
I am satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that the only reasonable inference arising from the evidence is the guilt of Stehbens.
I am satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that the only reasonable inference arising from the evidence is the guilt of Allford.
Verdict
The accused are each guilty of the charged offences. I am satisfied of the following:-
1.Each of the accused has dealt with property namely the cigarettes and razors belonging to the Woolworths stores;
2.Each of the dealings by the accused with that property was dishonest;
3.The dealing by each of the accused with that property was without the owner’s consent;
4.Each of the accused intended to permanently deprive the owner of the property or to seriously encroach on the owners’ rights in the property;
5.The accused are each guilty of the charged offences.
0