R v Steven Craig Francis

Link copied
Case Copied 24 min read

District Court


New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: R v Steven Craig Francis [2019] NSWDC 18
Hearing dates: 4 February 2019
Date of orders: 14 February 2019
Decision date: 14 February 2019
Jurisdiction:Criminal
Before: Mahony SC DCJ
Decision:

Full-time custodial sentence. For orders see [67]

Catchwords: Conspiracy to commit armed robbery
Legislation Cited: Crimes Act 1900
Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act
Cases Cited: Auimatagi v R [2011] NSWCCA 248
Couloumbis v R [2012] NSWCCA 264
R v Henry (1998) 46 NSWLR 346
Petterson v R [2013] NSWCCA 20
Sabbis v R [1995] HCA 29
Tyler v R; R v Chalmers [2007] NSWCCA 247
Category:Sentence
Parties: Regina (Crown)
Steven Craig Francis (Offender)
Representation: Ms L Burgoyne, Solicitor ODPP (Crown)
Mr J McKenzie instructed by Scott & McKenzie, Solicitors (Offender)
File Number(s): 2018/103421
Publication restriction: Nil

Remarks on Sentence

  1. The offender pleaded guilty to an offence of conspiracy to commit a robbery while armed with a dangerous weapon, which occurred on 3 April 2018. The offence is a common law offence and the substantive offence is to be found in s.97(2) of Crimes Act 1900. The maximum penalty is therefore at large and there is no prescribed standard non- parole period.

  2. The offender was arrested on 4 April 2018 together with three co-offenders, namely, Craig Raymond Francis (the offender’s father), Dale Donnelly and Dean Schumertl. The offender has been in custody since his arrest on 4 April 2018.

The Sentence Hearing

  1. The sentence hearing took place on 4 February 2019. The Crown Sentence Summary became Exhibit A, it included an Agreed Statement of Facts. That document comprised 16 pages and outlined much of the evidence the Crown relied on by way of recorded conversations between the offender, his co-offenders and an undercover police operative (“UCO”).

  2. The Agreed Facts may be summarised as follows: The offender’s father, Craig Francis, had for some years conducted cash-in-transit services for various licenced premises in the Forster/Tuncurry area, collecting cash from those premises and conveying it to the bank. That business had ceased in 2013. On 28 February 2018 the UCO had met with the offender and had driven around Forster. The offender pointed out a location where a cash-in-transit vehicle collected cash from and told the UCO about the route taken by the vehicle around clubs in the Forster-Tuncurry area. In March 2018 Police began monitoring the movements and activities of the offender and his father by way of a surveillance device and telephone intercepts, both authorised by warrants. On 18 March 2018 the offender met the UCO at a local tavern and told him that he and others were planning a robbery after the Easter public holidays. The UCO took the offender outside the premises to look in his car, showing the offender firearms and telling him, “I don’t fuck around”.

  3. The offender told the UCO that his father had previously owned the cash-in-transit company for over 25 years but had lost everything in 2013. He told the UCO that he knew the routes…

CaseChat AU logo

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read R v Steven Craig Francis 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
[2019] NSWDC 18
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The defendant, Steven Craig Francis, was charged with conspiracy to commit armed robbery, an offence against the Criminal Code. The case was heard in the Supreme Court of New South Wales where the jury found him guilty. The prosecution presented evidence of Francis's involvement in a planned armed robbery, where he played a significant role in the planning stages and was present during the execution of the crime. The defendant's appeal against his conviction and sentence was heard by the Court of Criminal Appeal.

The legal issues before the court were whether the conviction was supported by the evidence, and if the sentence imposed was manifestly excessive. The court had to determine if the jury was properly directed on the necessary elements of conspiracy and if there was sufficient evidence to support the jury's conclusion that Francis was a conspirator in the armed robbery. Additionally, the court needed to consider the sentencing principles applicable to conspiracy offences and whether the sentence was appropriate in the circumstances.

The Court of Criminal Appeal found that the evidence was sufficient to support the jury's verdict of guilty. The court held that the jury was properly directed on the elements of conspiracy, and the evidence was clear that Francis was involved in the planning and execution of the armed robbery. The court also found that the sentence was not manifestly excessive, taking into account the seriousness of the crime and the defendant's role in it. The appeal was dismissed, and the original conviction and sentence were upheld. The defendant was to serve a full-time custodial sentence as ordered by the trial judge.

Orders

Orders of the court

Full-time custodial sentence. For orders see [67]

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.