• Lawyers in Sydney
• Lawyers in Melbourne
• Lawyers in Brisbane
• Lawyers in Perth
• Family lawyers
• Employment lawyers
• Criminal lawyers
• Wills and estates lawyers
• Find a lawyer

Agreed facts

CC2025/8419: Joint Commission Aggravated Robbery

4. About 4:50am on Wednesday 30 April 2025, the offender attended [redacted], Duffy in the ACT in company with co-offenders, Shane HEMMINGSEN and Joshua BULLOCK. They attended the location to recover a debt.

5. On that date the victim was staying overnight at the residence while visiting his friends. For the duration of the early morning the victim and his friends were in the garage of the residence.

6. About 4:50am that same date, the offender, co offender HEMMINGSON, and co offender BULLOCK attended the location and opened the garage door. At the time Mr the victim was asleep.

7. The offender, co offender HEMMINGSON, and co offender BULLOCK stood over the victim and demanded money from him. They then demanded his car, a white 2024 Ford Ranger Raptor bearing ACT registration [redacted].

8. The victim initially refused, but one of the co offenders stated 'we're fucking taking it'. They told the victim that if he didn't give them his car he would 'never work again'.

9. Co offender BULLOCK then stated that he was going to get a car battery and hold the leads to victim’s friend to electrocute her and wake her up.

10. During this interaction co offender HEMMINGSON produced a small flick knife.

11. The victim handed his car keys to the offender and the three offenders left the residence.

12. The offender and co offender BULLOCK got into the white Ford Ranger and drove away. co offender HEMMINGSON got back into the car the group had attended in and drove away.

13. The victim immediately contacted ACT Police Operations and, utilising a GPS tracking device located in the vehicle, notified Police of its whereabouts. The tracking device placed the vehicle within proximity of the offender’s residence at [redacted] Lyons, ACT.

14. Police attended that location. The stolen motor vehicle was in the private carpark of an apartment building. The vehicle appeared to be parked in a way to hide it from view. This location is estimated to be between 150 and 200 metres from the offender’s address.

15. Police took digital photographs of the vehicle at the location.

16. Forensics attended the location and examined the vehicle before it was returned to the victim.

17. Police then attended the offender’s address and arrested her for aggravated robbery.

18. Co offender BULLOCK was sitting on the couch at the offender’s residence. He was not arrested at that time, as police were not yet aware of his involvement.

19. Police located Co offender Hemmingsen in the offender’s garage, hiding in the rear of a Holden Commodore with a vehicle cover shielding him from view.

20. A short time later, the offender was transported to the ACT Regional Watch House. About 8:35am am that same date, the offender participated in a Record of Interview (ROI) however ceased participation after receiving legal advice.

21. At no time did the victim give the co-offenders consent to take his vehicle.

Nature and circumstances of the offending

22. The follow features of the offence inform as an assessment of the objective seriousness of the offence and where it sits on the spectrum of conduct which can constitute the offence.

23. The offending involved a breach of the sanctity of the premises where the victim was staying; a place he was entitled to feel safe and secure. The victim was initially sleeping and accordingly, in a state of vulnerability when the co-offenders entered the premises. The co-offenders made demands and threats to the victim and to another person present.

24. The offence was committed in company. The number of offenders created the environment of threat critical to the success of the offence. Co-offender Hemmingsen produced a weapon, a small knife, during the offence. This added to the air of menace and facilitated the victim’s co-operation.

25. This was a joint criminal enterprise and the offender is responsible for all that occurred during the offence and her presence meant the victim was outnumbered by the co-offenders. Nonetheless it is necessary to assess the role the offender had in the execution of the enterprise. She does not appear to have played an especially significant role in the offending noting that none of the threats or demands made were directly attributed to her. The debt being pursued was not a debt owed to her. She did not possess, or refer to, a weapon.

26. I am satisfied that the offence required some planning. Ultimately it was an unsophisticated enterprise noting that none of the co-offenders made any attempt to conceal their identify and drove, directly it would seem, from the scene to the address of the offender where they were easily detected by investigating police. The victim was not subjected to physical violence during the assault and suffered no physical injury. There is no evidence that any damage was caused or any force was used to gain entry to the premises to get access to the victim. The vehicle stolen was an item of significant value though the taking of the vehicle is a separate offence that I must take into account when making a sentence related order for the aggravated robbery offence.

27. The maximum penalty for the offence reveals it to be objectively serious. This example involved some planning to bring about entry to a residence in company with the intention to recover a debt. The offending is plainly serious but the features of the conduct that I have recorded demonstrate this was not an especially serious example of the offence.

28. The additional offence of take motor vehicle without consent is an unremarkable example of this offence. There was no evidence that the offender drove the vehicle though she certainly travelled in it to arrive at her residence. The vehicle was recovered and there was no evidence that it suffered any damage. It is not clear if the victim suffered any loss or inconvenience arising from the taking of his motor vehicle. Subjective circumstances

29. A pre-sentence report was complete for the initial sentencing hearing. There were also two intensive correction order assessment reports (ICOAR). The following is a summary of the offender’s background and personal history compiled from the information contained in those reports.

30. The offender is a Kamilaroi and Dunghutti woman. She is 35 years of age. She was born in New South Wales. She reported limited connection to culture. She advised the report author she is currently engaged with Yedding Mura for community support. The offender was primarily raised by her mother from the age of three.

31. The offender described her upbring in positive terms, although the report author noted that the offender’s mother disclosed excessive alcohol consumption and expressed concern that this had negatively affected the offender’s development and wellbeing.

32. As a teenager the offender was sent to stay with family in Orange, NSW to “keep her out of trouble” and she eventually left home at age 15. The offender maintains a positive relationship with her mother. The offender’s brother died in August 2016 and she reported that his death and subsequent coronial inquest had a significant effect upon her.

33. The offender became pregnant at age 19. She now has three sons. Two are in her care and the third resides with his father. The offender has had four significant relationships. Three of those relationships involved family violence perpetrated against her.

34. The offender resides in an ACT Housing property her two sons.

35. After leaving school in year 10 the offender was employed in various positions including in hospitality, as a pharmacy assistant and as an aged care support worker. Her longest period of employment was in 2016 for 15 months.

36. The offender began using illicit substances, specifically methamphetamine, in 2017. The offender reported that her methamphetamine use was influenced by former partners who had exerted control over her including by ‘forcing’ her to use drugs. The offender used cannabis daily in 2020. She considered this to be a way to address her underlying metal health concerns.

37. The offender underwent 20 urinalysis drug tests between March 2022 and September 2025. All returned negative results for any illicit substances. On 24 November 2025 the offender reported cannabis use to assist her with severe pain from an underlying medical condition.

38. In the ICOAR completed in December 2025, the offender was assessed as suitable for a good behaviour order and for community service work. The offender was also found suitable for an ICO. The following recommendations were made: (a) The offender be required to continue to engage with Yeddung Murra for case management and engagement with alcohol and drug counselling, mental health and healthy relationship programs. (b) The offender be required to engage with a grief and/or trauma counselling. (c) The offender be subject to a curfew condition at the discretion of ACT Corrective Services.

39. An ICOAR completed by a different community corrections officer some months later in 2026 assessed the offender as unsuitable for an ICO and for community service work. Neither the prosecutor nor counsel for the offender could identify any substantial difference in the matters canvassed in the two assessment reports. The latter report identified ‘major problem with alcohol or controlled cannabis’ as the reason for the conclusion that the offender was unsuitable for an ICO. I will return to this further on.

40. Tendered in the case for the offender were letters from the National Justice Project, Yeddung Mura, Winnunga Aboriginal Health and Community Services, a medical imaging result report and a letter written by the offender.

41. The letter from the National Justice Project was authored by the solicitor who acted for the offender and her family in the coronial proceedings which examined the circumstances surrounding the death of the offender’s brother. She observed the severe effect upon the offender and other members of her family of these proceedings. She specifically noted that the offender appeared to relapse with respect to drug use during the proceedings.

42. The exacerbation of the offender’s drug use by the death of her brother and the circumstances in which it occurred was confirmed in an psychiatric report prepared by psychiatrist Dr Lana Kossoff which was annexed to the National Justice Project letter. The report of Dr Kossoff was comprehensive and confirmed a diagnosis of PTSD related to domestic violence. Dr Kossoff also concluded that the offender’s history was consistent with a diagnosis of Borderline Personality Disorder and that she has Prolong Grief Disorder and Panic Disorder. These psychiatric illnesses, Dr Kossoff considered “have had a significant adverse effect on her ordinary life” and were compounded by the profound effect on the offender of her brother’s death. The Inquest findings determined that his death was preventable and the offender experiences ongoing feels of guilt, distress and intrusive thoughts.

43. Dr Kossoff confirmed the offender’s entrenched history of high lethality suicidal ideation and recorded that she has “chronic elevated suicidal risk which may elevate in response to psychosocial stressors”. Dr Kossoff concluded that the offender had numerous psychiatric vulnerabilities prior to the death of her brother which underpinned the severity of and intensified her response to his death. Dr Kossoff noted that the offender’s mental health vulnerabilities had already had a “devasting impact” on her life prior to the death of her brother which included [redacted], periods of incarceration and near-lethal suicidal attempts as well as withdrawal from her family and friends.

44. Dr Kossoff noted that the offender sought therapeutic assistance in 2023 in relation to depression-like symptoms, panic attacks and ‘flashbacks’ of violent conduct she had been subjected to by ex-partners. The psychologist who treated the offender over that period recorded that she was “bereft” that her brother had died and wanted to end her own life.

45. Dr Kossoff catalogued extreme levels of violence perpetrated against the offender by her ex-partners including an act of strangulation resulting in a perforated ear drum in July 2023 which was recorded in medical records provided to Dr Kossoff. The offender reported being fearful of formally reporting the violence against her and confided that at one stage she had deliberately sought to be remanded in custody to escape the perpetrator. Dr Kossoff concluded that the offender requires ongoing, intensive treatment and support.

46. Yedding Mura confirmed the offender’s consistent engagement with their services since 2021. The offender has received support with bail compliance and other obligations as well as cultural guidance and support. The author commended the offender’s ability to demonstrate “resilience and determination to build a better life for herself and her children.”

47. Dr Stokes from Winnunga confirmed the offender’s mental health diagnoses and the deteriorating effect that being incarcerated has previously had on the offender including exacerbation of her suicidal ideation which resulted in two serious “near fatal” attempts on her life in December 2023 and April 2025. Dr Stokes confirmed that the offender is the primary carer for two of her children, is a long-term patient of the Winnunga practice and was prescribed 15mg of mirtazapine per day for “depression and anxiety”.

48. The offender wrote that she wanted to be accountable for her conduct and acknowledged the harm that her offending has caused to others. She expressed shame for her part in the incident and for her history of offending. The offender set out the steps she has taken, having determined upon her release in September last year to “turn her life around” consistent with that described above. The offender stated that she continues to be motivated to pursue rehabilitation so that she can remain the primary carer for her two boys who reside with her

49. The offender’s medical imaging report confirmed a diagnosis of endometriosis.

Responsibility, remorse and rehabilitation

50. By her plea of guilty the offender has accepted responsibility for her offending conduct, I am satisfied that the offender had significant mental health challenges that were operating at the time of the offending which undermined her capacity to make sound judgment. Her moral culpability should be reduced.

51. The offender was granted bail in September 2025. Since that period, she has achieved a level of stability and sobriety. The matter was adjourned after an initial sentencing hearing at the end of 2025. Since that time the offender has strictly complied with bail and continued to engage with ACT Corrective Services and other services who are assisting her.

52. The offender’s criminal history is consistent with her long-term challenge with illicit substance use and mental ill-health as well as instability brought about by family violence. The offender’s children appear to be a significant motivation for her rehabilitation. This observation is consistent with material before me from services who have supported her in the community now over a significant period. The offender did complete the program at the Ngunnawal Bush Healing Farm (NBHF) in 2023 and achieved abstinence for the duration of a previous intensive correction order (ICO) imposed upon her in 2023.

53. The offender’s caseworker Ms Langi from Yeddung Mura recorded in her July 2026 letter that the offender has demonstrated “consistent and meaningful engagement” with supports including mental health and drug and alcohol programs. She considered that the offender has brought about positive change in her life which include “improvements in her insight, emotional regulation and help-seeking behaviour, all of which are critical to her ongoing rehabilitation.”

54. Ms Langi concluded that the offender has a “strong capacity for rehabilitation” and expressed concern that a return to the custodial environment would undermine the positive changes that the offender has been able to bring about and detrimentally disrupt her engagement with key community supports.

55. The offender’s strict compliance with bail conditions and her active engagement with supports designed to enhance her capacity for reform, provides a firm foundation upon which to conclude that she is a good prospect for rehabilitation. Clearly, she requires intensive support. If she can maintain her dedication to engagement with strong, tailored community supports and to abstinence from illicit substances, she will only improve her promise for reform.

Criminal History

56. The offender has a criminal history which contains entries for like offending. This limits the leniency which can be extended to her.

Time in custody and conditional liberty

57. The offender has spent 4 months and 16 days in pre-sentence custody.

58. On 22 May 2024 the offender was sentenced in relation to six offences which all occurred in November 2023. The offender was sentenced in the ACT Magistrates Court to a total period of imprisonment for 2 years which was suspended after the offender had served six months of imprisonment, on condition that she be of good behaviour for 18 months.

59. Each of the six offences were the subject of a suspended sentence order with a good behaviour order imposed in identical terms. The following periods of imprisonment were imposed on each offence: (a) CC22023/11653 attempt aggravated burglary, 12 months of imprisonment. (b) CC2023/11654 aggravated burglary, 12 months of imprisonment (concurrent with CC2023/11653). (c) CC2023/11655 attempt aggravated burglary, 9 months of imprisonment remains outstanding (consecutive on CC2023/11654). (d) CC2023/11656 ride/drive motor vehicle without consent, 3 months of imprisonment (concurrent with CC2023/11655) (e) CC2023/11657 damage property, 3 months of imprisonment (concurrent with CC2023/11655). (f) Cc2023/11658 ride/drive motor vehicle without consent, 3 months of imprisonment (consecutive on CC2023/11655).

60. The effect of the sentence imposed is that the offender has 18 months of imprisonment left to serve under the terms of the orders.

61. The offender was not required to accept supervision for the period of the good behaviour orders. The orders were breached almost a year into their term. That said, the offending was similar in nature having regard to the statement of facts for the offences and the breaching offence was not trivial. After the commission of this offence and her release on bail the offender has demonstrated strong commitment to her rehabilitation. I am not persuaded that by the commission of the aggravated robbery offence the offender was entirely abandoned the requirement to be of good behaviour.

Pleas of guilty

62. The offender pleaded guilty to the offence in the ACT Magistrates Court. The timing of the plea had significant utilitarian value. I will apply a reduction of 25% in recognition of the value of the very early plea.

Sentencing practice

63. I was taken to the following matters as comparable sentencing outcomes and I have had regard to them: DPP (Cth) v Thomas [2016] VSCA 237; 53 VR 546; DPP v Campbell (No 2) [2024] ACTSC 105; DPP v Scott [2024] ACTSC 378; DPP v Majeed [2024] ACTSC 28; R v Marshall (No 2) [2022] ACTSC 102; R v Hawkins [2020] ACTSC 29; Barrett v The Queen [2016] ACTCA 38; R v Serena [2019] ACTSC 231; DPP v XK [2023] ACTSC 141; R v Rowland; R v Herceg [2016] ACTSC 192.

Parity

64. Neither co-offender has been sentenced.

Determination

65. The seriousness of the offending is aggravated by the fact that the offender was on conditional liberty at the time the offence occurred for similar offences. I am also required to take into account an additional offence which elevates the criminality involved. A reduction in the offender’s moral culpability moderates to a degree the weight of general deterrence and punishment in this sentencing task. At the same time the offender’s criminal history, to the extent that it demonstrates a pattern of behaviour, together with her untreated mental health challenges (which are tightly connected to her use of illicit substances) elevate the importance of deterring her from offending and protecting the community.

66. The offender’s prospect of rehabilitation warrants promotion in circumstances where that prospect has been made real by the concerted effort of the offender to address the factors in her life driving her interaction with the criminal justice system. Of significance, since her release on bail the offender has largely remained abstinent from illicit substance use and has meaningfully engaged in supports designed to assist her to address her mental health challenges. She has not reoffended. She has complied strictly with bail conditions and she is committed to the care of her children. She has stable accommodation and ready access to several key support agencies.

67. Only a period of imprisonment can capture the gravity of the offending. The offender’s children who are in her full-time care would undoubtedly suffer hardship were she required to serve a further term of full-time imprisonment. I am satisfied that the progress she has made in the community would not only be disrupted but would be dramatically undermined by a return to the custodial environment. I am also satisfied that the offender would experience the conditions of custody more severely than a person who does not have her chronic, elevated suicidal risk. These are reasons to mitigate the severity of the sentence imposed upon her.

68. The offender did spend over 4 months in custody in relation to the offending. In light of her compliance and engagement upon her release, it is a period which I am satisfied had some deterrent and punishment effect upon her.

69. In the circumstances there is no utility to a return to full-time imprisonment. The best way to protect the community is to promote the offender’s rehabilitation given it is a now a realistic prospect. The prosecution supported an outcome that permits the offender to remain in the community and continue to pursue rehabilitation.

70. The starting point for the aggravated robbery offence is 33 months of imprisonment.

71. It will be necessary to deal with all six suspended sentence orders breached upon conviction for the instant offence. I must determine whether to impose the suspended periods of imprisonment or resentence the offender. The offender was more recently determined to be unsuitable for an ICO. The outcome of the latter ICOAR was curious where the was no substantial change in the information contained in the assessment report. Like both counsel, I could not readily identify the basis for the shift in the initial conclusion that the offender was suitable. In my view the intensive regime of supervision offered under an ICO is the outcome most likely to give effect to the offender’s promise for reform. The support and accountability offered under an ICO is both in the offender’s and the community’s interest. An ICO cannot be made at the same time as a suspended sentence order.

72. The offender spent six months in custody before her release on the suspended sentence orders imposed upon her in 2024. This is time in custody that should be taken in account. As I have already recorded, there is a further 4 months and 16 days to take into account.

73. I have determined that in coming to deal with the offender for the breach of the suspended sentence orders that I will impose the period suspended as full-time imprisonment on three of the offences. This will be backdated to account for time the offender had already spent in custody in relation to the offences.

74. I will impose periods of full-time imprisonment as follows: (a) CC2023/11656 ride/drive motor vehicle without consent, 3 months of imprisonment. (b) CC2023/11657 damage property, 3 months of imprisonment (concurrent with CC2023/11656). (c) CC2023/11658 ride/drive motor vehicle without consent, 3 months of imprisonment (consecutive on CC2023/11657).

75. The parties supported the making of an ICO for any further period of imprisonment to be imposed. An ICO cannot be backdated to take account of time spent in pre-sentence custody. Accordingly, I will recognise time spent in pre-sentence by reducing the period of imprisonment imposed on one of the attempt aggravated burglary offences. In coming to re-sentence the offender on the remaining suspended sentence orders I will give effect to the structure of the sentence originally imposed in the ACT Magistrates Court. The remaining three suspended sentence orders will be re-sentenced as follows: (a) CC2023/11653 attempt aggravated burglary, 12 months of imprisonment imposed to be served by ICO. (b) CC2023/11654 aggravated burglary, 12 months of imprisonment (concurrent with CC2023/11653) to be served by ICO. (c) CC2023/11655 attempt aggravated burglary, 4 months and 14 days of imprisonment (consecutive on CC2023/11654) to be served by ICO.

76. As a result of the re-sentencing task, I am sentencing the offender for multiple offences. I must consider the totality principle and ensure that the sentence is just and appropriate and reflects the overall criminality of the conduct. There will be a need for some concurrency as between the offences the subject of a re-sentence imposed and the sentence for the aggravated robbery offence.

77. The result will be a total sentence for a period of imprisonment for longer than 2 years. I can only make an intensive correction order for a sentence of imprisonment that is for more than 2 years (but not more than 4 years) if I consider it appropriate to do so, having regard to: (a) the level of harm to the victim and the community caused by the offence; and (b) whether the offender poses a risk to 1 or more people or the community; and (c) the offender’s culpability for the offence having regard to all the circumstances.

78. I have taken those matters into account, and I consider the making of an ICO is appropriate in all the circumstances.

Orders

79. The orders of the Court are: (1) On CC2025/8419, aggravated robbery, I convict the offender. (2) On CC2023/11656, ride/drive motor vehicle without consent, I impose the sentence of 3 months of imprisonment to start on 15 June 2025 to end on 14 September 2025. (3) On CC2023/11657 damage property, I impose the sentence of 3 months of imprisonment to start on 15 June 2025 and end on 14 September 2025 (concurrent with CC2023/11656). (4) On CC2023/11658 ride/drive motor vehicle without consent, I impose the sentence of 3 months of imprisonment (consecutive on CC2023/11657) to start on 15 September 2025 and end on 14 December 2025. (5) On CC22023/11653 attempt aggravated burglary, I resentence the offender to 12 months of imprisonment to start 15 September 2026 and end on 14 September 2027. (6) On CC2023/11654 aggravated burglary, I resentence the offender to 12 months of imprisonment to start on 15 September 2026 and end on 14 September 2027. (7) On CC2023/11655 attempt aggravated burglary, I resentence the offender to 4 months and 14 days of imprisonment to start on 15 September 2027 and end on 28 January 2028. (8) On CC2025/8419, aggravated robbery, I sentence the offender to 2 years and 22 days of imprisonment to start on 6 March 2027 and end on 27 March 2029. (9) The total sentence imposed from today is 2 years, 6 months and 13 days of imprisonment. (10) I direct that sentence of imprisonment be served by ICO. (11) In further direct that in addition to the core conditions, the ICO will require the offender to continue to engage with Yeddung Mura and with any grief or trauma counselling to which she is directed.

I certify that the preceding seventy-nine [79] numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Sentence of her Honour Justice Taylor Associate: O Williams Date: 18 September 2026