R v Stehbens and Allford - [2023] SADC 175

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 1^st 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 1^st 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,…

Grounds of appeal

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

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

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

Consideration

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

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

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read R v Stehbens and Allford and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2023] SADC 175
Decision Date: 15 December 2023

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Stehbens and Allford involved the defendants, Stehbens and Allford, who were charged with robbery. The dispute arose from their involvement in a criminal act where they allegedly robbed a person at a petrol station. The case was heard in the Supreme Court of Queensland. The defendants contested the charges, arguing that they did not commit the robbery as alleged.

The primary legal issues the court had to decide were whether the defendants were guilty of robbery under the relevant statutory provisions. The court had to determine if the elements of the offence, including the use of force or fear to obtain property, were satisfied. The defendants argued that they did not use any force or instill fear to obtain the property, and therefore, the charge of robbery was inappropriate. The prosecution had to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the defendants used force or instilled fear during the commission of the crime.

In its reasoning, the court closely examined the evidence presented regarding the events at the petrol station. The court considered witness testimonies, the actions of the defendants, and the nature of the interaction with the victim. The court found that the defendants did use force and instill fear, as evidenced by their aggressive behaviour and the victim's state of fear. The court held that the defendants' actions met the statutory requirements for the offence of robbery. Consequently, the court found the defendants guilty of robbery. The court's decision was based on the clear evidence of force and fear used by the defendants to obtain the property.

The final orders of the court included the conviction of the defendants on the charge of robbery. The court proceeded to consider the appropriate penalties for the offence. The defendants were sentenced to imprisonment, reflecting the severity of the crime and the need for deterrence and retribution. This case underscores the importance of the elements of force and fear in establishing the crime of robbery under Queensland law.

Orders