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) ActCases 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 247Category: 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
-
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.
-
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
-
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”).
-
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”.
-
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…
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
One click creates your free account or signs you in.
By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.
- Case
- [2019] NSWDC 18
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
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.