AI-generated summaries. Not legal advice. Always verify against the official judgment on NSW Caselaw.
← All decisions
District Court 14 February 2019

R v Craig Raymond Francis

[2019] NSWDC 17

Theft & propertyFirearms & weaponsPublic order & justice offences
CONSPIRACY TO COMMIT ARMED ROBBERY

Citation: R v Craig Raymond Francis [2019] NSWDC 17
Court: District Court of New South Wales
Date: 14 February 2019
Judge: Mahony SC DCJ

Background

The offender, a 56-year-old man, pleaded guilty to conspiracy to commit a robbery while armed with a dangerous weapon. The planned robbery targeted a cash-in-transit vehicle at an RSL Club in Forster, New South Wales, scheduled for 3 April 2018, the first business day after Easter. The offender had previously operated a cash-in-transit security business in the Forster-Tuncurry area until 2013, giving him detailed insider knowledge of local operations.

Three co-offenders, including the offender's son, were also arrested. An undercover police operative (UCO) had been embedded in the group and recorded conversations with the participants throughout the planning period. The offender's role was not to participate physically in the robbery but to place a hoax call to police on the morning of the offence, diverting resources away from Forster.

The offender provided operational intelligence to the group, including details about cash collection routes, timing, camera locations, and the likely volume of cash. On the morning of 3 April 2018, he sent a text message confirming the hoax call had been made. Police arrested the co-offenders at a motel and the offender at his home later that day.

  • What sentence was appropriate for an older offender who pleaded guilty to conspiracy to commit armed robbery under s 97(2) of the Crimes Act 1900, having played an ancillary but knowing role in the planning?
  • Whether a 25% utilitarian discount applied for an early guilty plea.
  • Whether special circumstances existed justifying a variation of the standard ratio between the head sentence and the non-parole period under s 44(2) of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999.
  • What weight, if any, should be given to the offender's mental health, alcohol consumption, and expressions of remorse?

Decision

Mahony SC DCJ sentenced the offender to a total term of 3 years imprisonment, with a non-parole period of 1 year and 9 months commencing on 4 April 2018. The court found the offence was serious: the offender was not a passive or uninformed participant but had actively supplied intelligence derived from his years running the cash-in-transit business, suggested the hoax call strategy, and confirmed his participation on the morning of the planned robbery.

The court found no causal connection between the offender's diagnosed depression, anxiety, or increased alcohol consumption and the offending. His motivation was assessed as financial gain. Little weight was given to expressions of remorse not supported by sworn evidence, though the early guilty plea attracted a 25% utilitarian discount.

The court distinguished the case from the guideline judgment in R v Henry, noting that the offender was considerably older than the typical armed robbery offender addressed in that case, that no actual violence occurred (though its threat was present), and that the discount applied here was significantly higher than the 10% applied in the guideline scenario. General deterrence and specific deterrence were both identified as important sentencing considerations, with the court observing that the offender had a prior conviction for dishonesty involving the same type of business.

Special circumstances were established under s 44(2) of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999, justifying a variation of the standard non-parole to head sentence ratio. The court assessed the offender as having good prospects of rehabilitation, supported by a Sentencing Assessment Report noting his exceptional prior compliance with supervision.

Orders Made

  • The offender was convicted of conspiracy to commit a robbery while armed with a dangerous weapon pursuant to the common law and s 97(2) of the Crimes Act 1900.
  • Non-parole period of 1 year and 9 months, commencing 4 April 2018 and terminating 3 January 2020.
  • Balance of term of 1 year and 3 months, commencing 4 January 2020 and expiring 3 April 2021.
  • Parole eligibility date: 3 January 2020.

Key Takeaways

  • A conspiracy to commit armed robbery contrary to s 97(2) of the Crimes Act 1900 is a common law offence with no maximum penalty and no standard non-parole period, giving the sentencing court considerable discretion.
  • An ancillary role, such as providing intelligence and agreeing to place a hoax call, does not insulate a participant from a full-time custodial sentence where the offending was deliberate, informed, and motivated by financial gain.
  • The District Court confirmed that R v Henry remains the applicable guideline for s 97(2) offences but acknowledged that departures from its typical fact pattern, including an older offender, no actual violence, and a larger guilty plea discount, are relevant to the sentencing exercise.
  • Claimed mitigating factors such as mental health diagnoses and alcohol consumption will not reduce culpability where the court finds no causal link between those factors and the offending conduct.
  • Special circumstances under s 44(2) of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 can be established where the court is satisfied that good rehabilitation prospects justify an extended period of supervised release on parole beyond the standard ratio.

Legislation and Cases Referenced

Legislation
- Crimes Act 1900 (NSW), s 97(2) (armed robbery)
- Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW), ss 5, 44(2)

Cases
- R v Henry (1998) 46 NSWLR 346 (guideline judgment for armed robbery sentencing)