• 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

2. On the evening of 10 December 2023, the victim, left her residence in Gowrie ACT with the offender and co-offender Raymond Ziebell on the understanding that they were going to drive to a nearby McDonald's restaurant.

3. They got into Mr Ziebells's vehicle, where co-accused Kristie Lee Watson (now deceased) was seated in the back seat. Mr Ziebell drove around for approximately two hours during which time the three co-accused demanded the victim give them money for drugs, struck her with a metal bat causing a tooth evulsion and laceration to her face, choked her, punched her, and threatened to cut her up with an electric saw that was inside the vehicle.

4. The offender's pleas are entered on the basis that she is jointly criminally liable for everything inside the car until the point where the car stops, after which point Mr Ziebell and Ms Watson went beyond the agreement with the offender. The victim ultimately escaped and sought refuge at the Lower Molonglo Water Quality Control Centre in Holt ACT where staff alerted police of the incident.

Relationship between the victim and three co-accused

5. Prior to 9 December 2023, the victim had not met the offender or Raymond Ziebell. She knew them through a mutual friend named James (a pseudonym), who had put the victim in contact with the offender and Mr Ziebell as he thought that they might be able to assist her in repairing her fence. The victim knew them as Cassie and Ray.

6. The victim knows Kristie Lee Watson personally and recognised her on the evening of 10 December 2023 but hadn't seen her for years.

7. Raymond Ziebell and Casey-Lee Pricsina were de facto partners as at 10-11 December 2023.

The incident on 10-11 December 2023.

8. On 9 December 2023, the offender and Mr Ziebell attended the victim's address to conduct repairs on her fence. They finished at about 8 o'clock in the evening, had some beers with the victim, and fell asleep on the victim's lounge. When the victim woke on the morning of 10 December 2023, the offender and Mr Ziebell had left.

9. At about 10:30pm on 10 December 2023, the victim was asleep when the offender knocked on the front door. The victim's daughter, Ms Fairlight (a pseudonym), did not answer. The offender then proceeded to knock on the back door. She was upset and calling out for the victim. Ms Fairlight answered the door and asked the offender if she was okay. The offender said that she needed to use the victim's phone to call her boyfriend with whom she had had a fight. Ms Fairlight attempted to wake the victim, but the victim was in a deep sleep. Ms Fairlight then offered for the offender to use her own phone to contact her boyfriend. The offender then messaged Mr Ziebell and attempted to call him several times via the Messenger application using Ms Fairlight’s Facebook profile.

10. Ms Fairlight again attempted to wake the victim, this time successfully. Ms Fairlight told the victim that "that girl" was in the backyard. The victim got up and went to the front door where she saw the offender and let her inside. The offender told the victim that she'd had a fight with her boyfriend. Meanwhile, Ms Fairlight retreated to her bedroom.

11. The victim and the offender proceeded to sit in the lounge room of the victim's house where they talked. The victim had a drink, which she thought tasted weird, like medicine. The victim had grabbed the drink from her fridge but had left it unattended on a couple of occasions.

12. Mr Ziebell arrived about 10 minutes after the offender's arrival. The victim let Mr Ziebell inside. From her bedroom, Ms Fairlight observed a black Audi pull up outside the house and heard a male enter the residence.

13. About 5-10 minutes after the offender's arrival, the offender suggested that the three of them drive to McDonald's. The victim said that she did not want to go, but the offender talked her into it. The victim, the offender and Mr Ziebell then left and got into Mr Ziebell's vehicle, which was parked in the victim's driveway. The vehicle was a dark colour with leather seats and a sunroof and was the vehicle that the victim had seen the offender and Mr Ziebell arrive at her house in the previous day.

14. Ms Watson was already seated in the backseat of Mr Ziebell's vehicle behind the driver's seat, but the victim did not realise that she was inside the car when she first got in. Mr Ziebell got into the driver's seat, the offender got into the front passenger seat, and the victim got into the rear passenger seat.

Count 3 – forcible confinement

15. The offender began driving and the three co-accused began accusing the victim of taking drugs or money and threatening her, including threats that they would cut the victim up and get to the victim's daughter. The victim insisted that she did not know what they were talking about, and told them that she would give them money. The victim pleaded with the co-accused to let her go home.

16. At some point during the car journey, Ms Watson told the victim that she had her house keys and car keys. The victim had not brought her keys with her and assumed that Ms Watson must have taken them from her residence at some point without her knowledge.

17. At another point during the car journey, the victim gave Ms Watson her phone and the details to access her bank account. Ms Watson stated that she wanted $10,000 from the victim, but the victim only had $4,000 in her bank account. Ms Watson did not withdraw any money from the victim's account.

Count 1 – recklessly inflict grievous bodily harm

18. At another point during the car journey, Ms Watson punched the victim in the face about two times and struck her in the face with a long metal bat about three times, causing the victim's right lateral incisor tooth to dislodge. The Offender was in the front passenger seat at this time and was not physically responsible for the tooth avulsion.

19. Mr Ziebell drove the vehicle through the Woden and Weston Creek area, before eventually bringing the vehicle to a stop.

Uncharged conduct in respect of the offender – context evidence

20. Once he brought the vehicle to a stop, Mr Ziebell went around to where the victim was seated. He opened the car door next to the victim, and threatened to cut her up with an electric saw that was inside the vehicle and bury her where the car had stopped.

21. Mr Ziebell then strangled the victim to the point where she could not breathe, put his knee in her chest, and punched the victim in the face. The victim managed to get out of the car and started to run away. Mr Ziebell and Ms Watson chased the victim, and one of them tripped the victim over. The victim pleaded with Mr Ziebell and Ms Watson, then got up and continued running. The victim ran towards gate 1 of the Lower Molonglo Water Quality Control Centre in Holt, which she climbed over. This is captured on CCTV footage as occurring at 12:43am on 11 December.

22. Meanwhile, Ms Fairlight awoke and discovered that the victim had left the residence. She became concerned and attempted to call her mother at least four times.

23. Mr Lukas (a pseudonym), an employee of Icon Water, was on a 12-hour shift at the Lower Molonglo Water Quality Control Centre. In the early hours of 11 December 2023, Mr Lukas was returning to the control room when he heard a car revving its engine "weirdly''. A minute or two later, he heard a woman screaming for help, followed by banging on the glass of one of the entrances to the building. Mr Lukas checked the other entrances before he saw the victim through the glass. He observed that she was bleeding from her face. The victim was pleading for assistance but Mr Lukas did not open the door at first out of concern for his safety. Mr Lukas asked the victim what she was doing there, and the victim responded by screaming for help. Mr Lukas told the victim that he was going to call the police, to which the victim replied "please call the police". Mr Lukas contacted the guard hut for assistance at 12:48am, and then called police at 12:49am from a land line, during which call he tried to ascertain further information from the victim. The victim was mostly concerned that the people who had attacked her had threatened her daughter, who was at home. Mr Lukas then requested police return his call on his mobile phone.

24. While Mr Lukas was on the phone to police, Mr Carney (a pseudonym), a security guard who was stationed at the guard hut, and David Baker (a pseudonym),, another Icon Water employee, attended to assist with the situation. Mr Carney observed that the victim had been "pretty badly beaten" and had a big cut on the side of her eye. The victim was saying that three people had picked her up, said that they were going to take her to McDonald's, and had beaten her. The victim also said that she had managed to escape from the car and that she was worried that they were going to get her daughter. Mr Carney recalls that the victim mentioned the name "Cassie".

25. They eventually let the victim into the building where they offered her a space blanket, a chair, and a drink of water.

26. Police attended shortly after 1:00am on 11 December and met with the victim. They observed that she was extremely distressed, had a large gash to her right eyebrow that was swollen and bleeding, had dried blood on her dress, had leaves in her hair, and was hyperventilating. The victim told police that she had been kidnapped by Kristie Watson, a man named Ray, and an unknown female. She said that Ms Watson had hit her multiple times with a bat and knocked her tooth out. The victim said that Ray had choked her and threatened her with an electric saw.

27. ACT Ambulance Service personnel attended the Lower Molonglo Water Quality Control Centre and assessed the victim at about 1:12am on 11 December. They subsequently conveyed the victim to the Emergency Department of The Canberra Hospital.

28. The victim underwent a clinical forensic medical examination conducted by Dr Russell Thomas at 12:17pm on 11 December 2023 at Canberra Hospital. Dr Thomas made the following findings: (i) The victim reported non-fatal strangulation. She reported that she felt light-headed during the attack and was found to have redness of her neck and tenderness of her cervical spine, findings which can be seen in cases of strangulation; (ii) The victim sustained injuries to her head, including a laceration, traumatic tooth avulsion, abrasions, redness, and tenderness; (iii) The victim sustained over 44 individually identifiable injuries of varying type (including lacerations, abrasions, and bruising) and across a number of anatomical body planes including the head, neck, upper limbs, and lower limbs, indicating multiple applications of force.

29. The victim was admitted to The Canberra Hospital and discharged on 13 December 2023.

Investigations and arrests

30. Footage from a plate recognition camera at the Lower Molonglo Water Quality Control Centre shows a vehicle leaving gate 1 of the facility at 12:31am on 11 December bearing the registration plates [redacted].

31. Police conducted checks on the registration [redacted] and found that it was registered to The Auto House in Mount Druitt, NSW. The Auto House produced a tax invoice showing that the vehicle was sold to Raymond Ziebell on 27 November 2023.

32. On 12 December 2023, police obtained search warrants and section 3LA orders for the following: (i) Kristie Watson; (ii) [redacted], the address of Ms Watson; (iii) Raymond Ziebell; (iv) Casey-Lee Pricsina; (v) [redacted] the address of the offender and Mr Ziebell; (vi) Black Audi bearing NSW registration [redacted]

33. The search warrant for [redacted], was executed by police at 1:40pm on 12 December 2023. The black Audi bearing registration [redacted], was observed to be parked in the driveway of the premises upon police arrival.

34. A number of items were seized in the course of the execution of the search warrant at [redacted]. Items of note include several electric saws and reciprocating saws, a metal pole with a black handle, $6,580 AUD cash inside a North Face bag, a ripped men's shirt stained with blood, and three resealable bags containing a crystalline substance.

35. The black Audi was forensically examined and searched. The following findings of note were made: (i) There is extremely strong support for the proposition that the victim is the source of a female DNA profile obtained from blood on the side of the centre console; (ii) Raymond Ziebell's fingerprints were found in numerous locations; (iii) Kristie Watson's fingerprint was found on the rear driver side door; (iv) A black tomahawk was seized from inside the vehicle and a mixed DNA profile from a minimum of three individuals was obtained from a swab ofthe handle. There is extremely strong support for the proposition that Raymond Ziebell and Casey- Lee Pricsina are contributors to this profile; (v) There is extremely strong support for the proposition that Casey-Lee Pricsina is a contributor to a mixed DNA profile from a minimum of two individuals obtained from fake nails and nail clippings found inside the vehicle.

36. The offender, Mr Ziebell, and three other persons were inside the residence at the time the search warrant was executed at [redacted]. At about 2:54pm, the section 3LA order was executed on Mr Ziebell. Mr Ziebell provided a passcode for his mobile phone, but not for the CCTV system installed at the residence.

37. The offender participated in a record of interview on the afternoon of 12 December 2023.

38. In her Record of Interview, the offender stated: (i) She and Ray were doing a fencing job for the victim, that Ray had organised; (ii) She and "Raymond" met the complainant through a friend and were helping her move her fence; (iii) On the evening of 10 December, she and Raymond argued so she went for a drive in their black Audi; (iv) She realised that she did not have her phone so she stopped by the complainant's house as she knew she had Raymond's number; (v) The complainant's daughter answered the door and Ms Pricsina messaged Raymond using the complainant's daughter's Facebook profile; (vi) Raymond arrived at the complainant's house, and they all decided to go to McDonald's; (vii) They made it to the end of the street when Ms Pricsina asked the victim if she had her phone, to which the complainant responded by jumping out of the car; (viii) She and Raymond then drove home; (ix) She knows a couple of "Kristys” but isn't sure of their surnames.

39. At about 11:30am on 13 December 2023, Ms Pricsina was arrested at an address in Narrabundah and conveyed to the ACT Regional Watch House.

40. Automatic Number Place Recognition (ANPR) records for [redacted] were subsequently obtained by police, showing that the vehicle was captured travelling along Erindale Drive at 10:19pm and 11:55pm on 10 December 2023.

41. The following items of interest were seized from the victim's residence: a toolbox, jerry can, work boots, and four cans of vodka mix drinks. A sample of the vodka mix drinks was analysed by the ACT Government Analytical Laboratory. "1,4-BUTANEDIOL" was detected in the liquid. "1,4-BUTANEDIOL" is a source of gamma-hydroxybutyrate (GHB).

42. Cellebrite examination conducted of Mr Ziebell's mobile phone revealed messages sent via the Facebook Messenger application between Mr Ziebell's Facebook profile and [redacted] the Facebook profile of Ms Fairlight. A number of messages had been "unsent".

43. The victim's phone and keys have not been located.

Victim impact statement

44. There was a victim impact statement before me. As I observed in DPP v Ziebell [2025] ACTSC 471 (Ziebell), the statement by the victim eloquently described the physical, psychological and emotional effect on her because of the episode of “unimaginable violence” she endured at the hands of the offender and co-offender. I adopt the following observations I made in Ziebell at [100]-[102]: The victim did not return to work after the incident during which she believed she would not be “returned home”. The victim expressed her disbelief that she managed to escape describing it as “a feat she still can’t believe [she] accomplished”. The victim explained that the “ordeal has changed us in ways I am still discovering” and set out the following matters: I was taken to Canberra hospital in critical condition. I sustained a fractured rib and facial trauma. I underwent emergency surgery, including the insertion of a chest drain to prevent my lung from collapsing. My phone has been stolen, leaving me cut off from the world. My employer found me four days later. Since then, my life has narrowed to a corridor of fear and isolation. I rarely leave the house and find shopping malls unbearable. At night, I have to lock my daughter and myself in our room to find some sense of safety to fall asleep. The injuries remain. My right eye only sees 66%. My jaw clicks, I have missing teeth and a scar down my face. My daughter had to leave her dream job that stretches our resources to the breaking point. Her life has been irrevocably altered. The statement directly informs an understanding of the extent of the harm occasioned to the victim by the actions of the offender and the co-offenders. On any view that harm was extensive and all consuming. The victim impact statement eloquently expressed the life altering consequences she has experienced and revealed the devastation that violent offending such as this can bring about. Nature and circumstances of the offending

45. The maximum penalty for each offence is a ‘yardstick’ by which to measure the objective seriousness of the offence.

46. The consequence for an individual offender of participation in a joint criminal enterprise is liability or responsibility for all acts committed by the participants while carrying out the enterprise: KR v The Queen [2012] NSWCCA 32 per Latham J (Whealey JA and Harrison J agreeing) at [19]- [20]. An assessment of responsibility and moral culpability are relevant at different stages of the criminal process: KR at [20]. Moral culpability is assessed by reference to the specific conduct an individual participant engaged in, as well as their subjective circumstances “in order to determine the appropriate degree of punishment”: KR at [22]. An assessment of the objective seriousness of a joint criminal enterprise offence therefore will have limits to the amount of differentiation amongst co-offenders: Stott v The Queen [2012] ACTCA 33 at [64].

47. With those principles in mind, I turn to consider the features of each offence.

48. In Ziebell I observed at [45], that there is an overarching circumstance which applies to all the offences. I am satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that the offending was planned which included the victim being persuaded to get into the vehicle by a deception. Once in the vehicle, the co-offenders acted in accordance with, or in the course of carrying out, the agreement they had reached to commit the offences.

49. The prosecution submitted that this offender, whilst not engaging in the physical conduct which established the elements of the offence, arguably played a more significant role than co-offender Ziebell for the following reasons: (i) The offender attended the victim’s residence and made repeated attempts to rouse occupants to gain access to the victim. (ii) The offender lied to the victim to garner support and trust by telling the victim there had been a fight between herself and her partner. (iii) The offender spiked the victim’s drink in an effort to facilitate the offending. (iv) When the victim expressed reluctance to accompany the offender, the offender “coaxed” the victim to do so. (v) The offender engaged in the conduct with knowledge that at the very least the offender would be held against her will.

50. I am not persuaded that the offender played a role of greater significance as compared to co-offender Ziebell. I am satisfied that she played a critical role in the commission of the offences. I am satisfied beyond reasonable doubt based on the agreed statement of facts that it was the offender who ‘spiked’ the victim’s drink.

51. Based on evidence before me, the detail of which will be recorded below, I am satisfied that the dynamic of the relationship between the offender and co-offender Ziebell included a level of manipulation and control exerted by him over her. This factor was operating at the time of the offending such that I am satisfied that the offender was influenced by it to engage in the offending in the way that she did. This does not absolve the offender of responsibility for her part. Rather it recognises that co-offender Zeibell was able to direct and instruct the offender as to her participation because of his controlling approach to their relationship; a dynamic which made it more likely that the offender would execute his instructions. The prosecutor accepted this finding was open on the material before me and conceded that such a finding would result in a conclusion that the co-offender played a more significant role than the offender.

Count 1: Recklessly inflict grievous bodily harm

52. In DPP v Paff [2023] ACTSC 259 at [21] Loukas-Karlsson J observed: …[T]he objective seriousness for the offence of recklessly inflicting grievous bodily harm is to be assessed by reference to the conduct of the offender and associated degree of recklessness, together with the nature of the grievous bodily harm to the victim: DPP v Crutchett [2023] ACTSC 193, R v Bandy [2018] ACTSC 261; R v Sharma [2016] ACTSC 180 (Sharma); R v Myles [2017] ACTSC 194; R v Butters [2019] ACTSC 143. The circumstances of the offending are also relevant: McCullough v The Queen [2009] NSWCCA 94; 194 A Crim R 439 at [37].

53. The offender did not directly perform any of the acts of violence perpetrated against the victim. The analysis in Ziebell at [47]-[49] applies to this offender: The offender did not personally perform the conduct which constituted this offence. The prosecution conceded that the court would be unable to find beyond a reasonable doubt that the offender knew that co-accused Watson had possession of a ba,,, ]tseball bat, nor that she intended to use it to commit the offence. Nonetheless, the offender is still liable for the offence on the basis that he entered into an agreement with the co-offenders the scope of which included the forcible confinement and physical assault of the victim, and the offence was committed in the course of carrying out the agreement: s 45A(1)(b)(i) of the Criminal Code. The mechanism of the injury being repeated blows to the face with a weapon was brutal. The prosecution accepted that the loss of a tooth is a less serious example of harm that might be captured by this offence. Count 3: forcible confinement

54. The offender lied to the victim to engender her sympathy and to encourage her trust and ‘spiked’ her drink. This deception was critical to the victim’s eventual willingness to leave the safety of her residence and voluntarily enter the vehicle.

55. I accept that the offender was not the driver of the vehicle, nor did she engage in the acts of violence which took place during the period of confinement. That said, she remains liable for the offence on the basis that she entered into an agreement with the co-offenders the scope of which included the forcible confinement of the victim: s 45A(1)(b)(i) of the Criminal Code.

56. As I observed in Ziebell at [51]: The victim was confined for a protracted period. The offence was committed in furtherance of other offences and included threats of violence and the infliction of actual violence. The victim would have experienced significant fear given the offending was in company, weapons were present, and the victim was significantly outnumbered which undoubtedly contributed to her fear and sense of helplessness: R v Cowling [2019] ACTSC 138 at [12] citing R v Williams [2016] ACTSC 389 per Refshauge ACJ.

57. This is a serious example of this offence. Summary transfer offence of minor theft

58. The transferred charge particularised the property which was stolen as “keys”.

59. As I observed in Ziebell at [61]: The offence was committed as part of the joint criminal enterprise and the prosecution accepted that they could not identify the precise role of the offender in the taking of the victim’s keys. The prosecution accurately observed that the taking of the victim’s keys in the context of this offending represented a significant breach of the security of her home and undoubtedly resulted in inconvenience and anxiety.

60. Those same considerations apply for this offender as the precise role of the offender played in the minor theft of the victims’ keys is unknown.

Subjective circumstances

61. A pre-sentence report (PSR) was completed on 12 November 2025. An Intensive Correction Order Assessment report (ICOAR) was completed on 10 March 2026. A report was also completed by psychologist Ms Vanessa Edwige on 20 February 2026. The offender’s subjective factors can be summarised as follows.

62. The offender is a 35-year-old Wiradjuri woman born and raised in Canberra. She is one of six children to her parents’ union. She reported positive relationships with her parents, advising they were always supportive and attempted to provide everything she wanted. The offender reported positive relationships with her some of her siblings. The offender relocated to Queensland when she was 8 years old to support her maternal grandmother who was diagnosed with cancer.

63. [redacted]. The offender’s behaviour changed ‘dramatically’ after the abuse and she experienced anxiety and extreme feelings of anger.

64. The offender described to the PSR author being “socially withdrawn” and “frequently angry” during her youth. She reported experiencing low self-esteem and negative body image. She was bullied at school and as a result left in year 8 to finish her year 10 certificate at Canberra Institute of Technology.

65. The offender is presently single. The offender’s first relationship commenced when she was approximately 16 years old and resulted in the birth of her four children who are now aged 15, 13, 9 and 8. She described her partner for 11 years as an abusive “alcoholic” which was a contributing factor to the demise of the relationship. The offender believed that her ex-partner and four children currently live in NSW however she has no contact with them. The offender identified the loss of care of her children as an event the effect of which has entrenched her substance misuse.

66. The offender expressed a desire to regain some form of custody or visitation with her children though was uncertain how she might navigate the associated legal processes. The offender’s second relationship resulted in the birth of her fifth child. She described this relationship was negative and disclosed being the victim of both physical and verbal abuse at the hands of her partner. Her partner died by suicide in her home in 2021. The offender believed witnessing her partner’s death and the abuse she experienced during this relationship contributed to her diagnosis of Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD). Her third relationship commenced in the years following and she reported he was involved in the “criminal system” and engaged in illicit substance use. She advised this relationship ended approximately two years ago.

67. Ms Edwige concluded that the offender’s experience of abusive intimate partners and consequent disruption and instability has resulted in “severe physical and psychological injury” which has had a “profound impact on her overall psychological wellbeing and emotional regulation”.

68. The offender’s mother died in 2017. Ms Edwige observed that the death of the offender’s mother “had a profound and destabilising impact on her psychological functioning”. The offender’s father, with whom she was close, died in 2022 and she has a limited relationship with only one of her siblings.

69. The offender now resides in a Housing ACT property on her own. She described many years of housing instability as a result of instability in her relationships brought about by drug use and domestic violence.

70. The offender has a limited employment history having become a stay-at-home mother when she had her first child as a teen. After leaving school the offender reported having worked in different roles primarily in the hospitality industry. Since the birth of her children, she has remained unemployed and reported being a recipient of the Job Seeker Centrelink payments for approximately 15 years. The offender has a small group of close friends she sees on a regular basis. She claimed none of these associates are currently engaged in the criminal justice system. References provided by close friends of the offender in November 2025 and July 2026 referred to the challenges she has faced, her kindness as well as her willingness to help others and her positive contribution to her small housing community.

71. The offender first consumed alcohol socially at age 16 which eventually progressed to daily use at age 19. She stopped drinking alcohol following the death of her mother however later resumed drinking on social occasions.

72. The offender commenced illicit drugs use at age 14. The offender commenced methamphetamine use following the death of her mother which escalated to daily use. The offender identified that emotional distress is a ‘trigger’ for her substance use and acknowledged it is not a healthy coping mechanism. The offender claimed illicit substance use approximately once every six months.

73. On 5 February 2025, 31 October 2024 and 19 September 2024 the offender tested positive to methamphetamines and amphetamines. On 9 June 2026, the offender declared methamphetamine and cannabis use prior to urinalysis testing. She failed to participate in the directed urinalysis testing on 9 June 2026. On 29 June 2026, the offended was further directed to provide a sample for urinalysis which was abandoned in lieu of her declaration of illicit substance use.

74. The offender expressed a willingness to engage in the Salvation Army Day Program or a residential rehabilitation program on multiple occasions. She engaged with the Ngunnawal Bush Healing Farm (NBHF) on 3 November 2025. She described the program in positive terms. She reported she had also engaged in Aboriginal art programs, alcohol and drug programs, and grief counselling.

75. Since March 2026, the offender engaged weekly with a case manager who was assisting her with applications for rehabilitation programs. On 7 July 2026, the offender was accepted into the ‘Foundation Program’, a 3-month residential rehabilitation program operated by Canberra Recovery Service. The offender’s bail was varied to reflect this opportunity. Through her counsel the offender accepted that it was necessary for her to demonstrate her commitment to her own rehabilitation in the context of repeated positive results to urinalysis and her continued use illicit substances.

76. On 21 July 2026, the offender presented to report a breach of bail. The offender was ‘excluded’ from the rehabilitation program on 20 July 2026. The offender was remanded in custody on 21 July 2026.

77. The offender has a formal diagnosis, confirmed by Consultant Forensic Psychiatrist, Andrew Carroll in a letter provided to the author of the PSR dated 3 February 2026, of Complex Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (CPTSD), Agoraphobia and Panic Disorder. The offender is not prescribed medication for any of these conditions. Ms Edwige confirmed the diagnosis of CPTSD, major depressive disorder and substance misuse disorder and observed that the offender presents with obsessive compulsive behaviours as well as behaviours consistent with agoraphobia, both of which warranted further investigation.

78. The offender reported experiencing anxiety and panic attacks around large groups. She noted this worsened upon the death of her mother. The author of the PSR was provided with a letter from ACT health dated 28 October 2025 which confirmed the offender had been seen by their service in August 2025 and her presentation was consistent with psychological stressors in the context of legal matters and substance use. The offender was encouraged to engage with the alcohol and drug service, community support contacts and was referred to a general practitioner for a mental health care plan. The offender is no longer a client of this service.

79. The offender described her general health in positive terms however noted she experiences chronic pain because of a car accident in 2020. She has been prescribed Lyrica for pain management when required.

80. The offender was assessed as a high risk of general re-offending which required a high level of intervention by ACT Corrective Services to address drug use, mental health, trauma and grief. After revocation of the offender’s bail in July 2026, she was assessed as ineligible for placement at the ‘The Glen’ residential rehabilitation program. Evidence from the offender

81. The offender gave evidence in the proceedings on 17 November 2025.

82. The offender confirmed that she formed a relationship with co-offender Ziebell in 2023 not long after the death of her father. As the relationship progressed Mr Ziebell subjected the offender to controlling and abusive behaviour.

83. The offender agreed before the offending she and Mr Ziebell had attended the victim’s home to build a fence. As the job progressed, he became more aggravated and irritated toward the victim. The offender said she and the co-offender both used methamphetamine on the day of the offending – “a decent amount, not a little bit”. Mr Ziebell directed the offender to get in the car or he “would deal” her “when he got back”. Because of her “history of DV” she complied with his instruction.

84. The offender stated that she did not know Ms Watson was in the car and did not know Mr Ziebell was going to hurt the victim and she broke up with Mr Ziebell shortly after he was arrested.

85. The offender confirmed that on her own initiative she was attending the NBHF daily and abstinence from drug use is required. She expressed a desire to attend a residential rehabilitation program and stated she has explored residential rehabilitation options including in Orange, NSW. This facility had recently informed her that they were no longer accepting interstate participants.

86. The offender stated that a reference in the PSR to an appointment with Karalika was inaccurate. The offender was told to expect a phone call from the facility on two occasions, and she was not contacted either time by that service.

87. The offender is currently the subject of a Community Service Work condition. She explained that she has attempted to engage with that requirement and is awaiting contact from ACT Corrective Services about options for the performance of community service work.

88. The offender also explained that her reluctance to discuss the offending with the author of the PSR stemmed from confusion about the version of the statement of facts to which the author had access. The offender stated that her drug use on the day of the offending would not have exceed a “half ball” of methamphetamine. She was using daily at the time the offences occurred.

89. The offender said it was “possible” that she went to the victim’s house and told the victim that she had had an argument with Mr Ziebell. The offender agreed that before the offending she knew Ms Watson “loosely”. She said Ms Watson was not in the vehicle when she got out of the vehicle at the victim’s home and she did not know Ms Watson was in the vehicle when she returned to it with the victim. The offender said Mr Ziebell stopped the car “a couple of houses down” and Ms Watson got into the vehicle.

90. The offender stated that about five minutes into the driving she realised they were not going to McDonalds. She then agreed that she knew they were not ever going to McDonalds. She did not recall victim asking to get out of the vehicle repeatedly. The offender agreed that when she got out of the vehicle and approached the front door, Mr Ziebell drove away. Mr Ziebell instructed the offender to relax the victim so that she would get into the vehicle with them.

91. The offender agreed that she knew the plan was to take the victim for a drive and demand money from her. She said that when Ms Watson got into the car the offender asked, “what is going on?” and no-one replied. Mr Ziebell turned the music up and told the offender to “shut up”. The offender agreed that she convinced the victim to get into the vehicle knowing that something bad would happen to the victim when she did so. She said she could not recall the “exact content” of what was said by anyone in the car.

92. The offender said Mr Ziebell was supplying her with methylamphetamine during their relationship.

93. She recalled being arrested for the offences in December 2023 and released on bail. She agreed that she entered a plea of guilty to a drug trafficking offence which occurred in April 2024. The offending was detected when a vehicle driven by a co-offender was involved in a collision and drugs were located by police. The offender said she was in the car because her co-offender was giving her a lift home so that she could comply with her bail curfew conditions. The offender said she assisted the co-offender as “a middle-man” by identifying customers for him to supply drugs.

94. The offender agreed that by her evidence in these proceedings she had “downplayed” her role in the offending from December 2023. She did not agree that she had similarly “downplayed” the extent of her involvement in the drug offending from April 2024.

95. I cannot accept the offender’s version of events where it differed from the agreed statement of facts in this matter, in light of her concession about her evidence.

Responsibility, remorse and rehabilitation

96. The offender played a significant role in the offending. I have accepted that the offending occurred in the context of there being some pressure exerted upon her by virtue of the controlling relationship that she was in with co-offender Ziebell.

97. The offender’s childhood experience [redacted] must be given “full weight”: Bugmy v The Queen [2013] HCA 37; 249 CLR 571 at [42]. Ms Edwige acknowledged the ‘devastating’ and life-long effect that the experience of child sexual abuse can bring about. Ms Edwige recorded the evidence in support of the strong link between child sexual abuse and adverse psychological and physical consequences. The offender does not appear to have ever accessed therapeutic intervention to address the significant harm perpetrated upon her as a child. Ms Edwige concluded that the offender’s mental health disorders, her long-term exposure to domestic violence as an adult and her childhood trauma were all factors which influenced her ability to make sound judgments at the time of her offending conduct. I accept that the offender’s childhood [redacted] is intertwined with her early use of illicit substances and the mental health challenges she now experiences.

98. The offender’s moral culpability for the offending should be reduced to an extent.

99. The offender declined to discuss her attitude towards the offences on three occasions with the author of the PSR advising she wished to seek legal advice before doing so. The offender accepted when she gave evidence that she had ‘downplayed’ her role in the offending. The offender did express some remorse to Ms Edwige as well as in statements authored by her which were tendered in these proceedings. I accept the offender generally feels remorse for the experience of the victim though I am not persuaded that she has fully reckoned with her own role in the offending.

100. The offender has consistently either returned positive results to urinalysis or declared use of illicit substances.

101. The reality is that the offender has not taken the opportunity whilst on bail to address her ongoing drug use, despite repeatedly expressing her desire to do so. This is troubling in the context of illicit substance use featuring consistently in her interactions with the criminal justice system. It is a significant risk factor that dramatically undermines her capacity to comply with a community-based sentence.

102. Though the offender has not substantially reoffended since 2024, her failure to address her substance misuse looms large in an assessment of her prospect of rehabilitation, where it has consistently featured as a driver of her offending conduct and remains explanation for her failure to comply with the conditions of a suspended sentence order imposed upon her in 2025 for drug offending in 2024. To date, the offender has only completed 20 hours of the 160 hours of community service work she is required to perform under the terms of that order.

103. When these proceedings were adjourned for the offender to be assessed for an intensive correction order (ICO) the offender failed to engage and so was unable to be assessed.

104. I acknowledge that she has engaged with the NBHF and a letter dated 14 August 2026 confirmed a place for the offender in their day program.

105. I observe here that the offender does not appear to have difficulty identifying that she needs support and engaging initially with rehabilitation services. The challenge for the offender lies in the acts required to bring rehabilitation about. Whilst she has consistently expressed some desire for reform, it is the execution of that desire (reiterated in a letter tendered on 18 August 2026) where the offender has consistently struggled.

106. This is consistent with information recorded by Ms Edwige which noted the offender discharged against medical advice from the Canberra Hospital Withdrawal unit in 2021 and did not continue with the Karalikka day program in the same year. In 2025 the offender was unable to continue with the Directions Pathways to Recovery program because she could not meet the daily attendance requirement.

107. Her prospect of rehabilitation is difficult to assess. Ms Edwige concluded that the offender required psychiatric assessment as well as intensive therapeutic intervention that focusses on skill development in the areas of self-regulation, coping mechanisms, resilience building and self-esteem. Ms Edwige considered Eye Movement Desensitisation and Reprocessing (EMDR) may be particularly effective for the offender. Engagement in these kinds of supports and treatment as well as confronting her challenge with substance use would undoubtedly, greatly enhance the offender’s prospect of rehabilitation. Parity

108. Parity is a consideration in this matter there being a co-offender. Neither offender should be left with a justifiable sense of grievance arising from the sentence I impose.

109. Co-accused Watson is deceased. Co-offender Ziebell was sentenced as follows (after a 25% reduction in recognition of his plea of guilty and an additional 5% reduction in recognition of his preparedness to give evidence in any future proceedings): (i) On the charge of minor theft (joint commission) 2 months and 24 days imprisonment commencing 2 September 2024 and expiring 25 November 2024. (ii) On the count of forcible confinement (joint commission) 2 years 9 months and 18 days imprisonment commencing 2 September 2024 and expiring on 19 June 2027. (iii) On the count of intentionally and unlawfully choke, suffocate or strangle another person (joint commission) 2 years 1 month and 5 days imprisonment commencing 13 November 2026 and expiring on 17 December 2028. (iv) On the count of recklessly inflict grievous bodily harm (joint commission) 2 years 1 month and 5 days imprisonment commencing on 12 February 2028 and expiring on 16 March 2030. (v) On the count of assault occasioning actual bodily harm (joint commission) 1 year 4 months and 22 days imprisonment commencing on 24 April 2029 and expiring on 14 September 2030. (vi) On the count of reckless threat to inflict grievous bodily harm (joint commission) 1 year 4 months and 22 days imprisonment commencing 8 October 2029 and expiring on 1 March 2031. (vii) The total period of imprisonment is 6 years and 6 months imprisonment commencing 2 September 2024 and expiring 1 March 2031. (viii) I set a non-parole period of 3 years 10 months and 25 days, commencing on 2 September 2024 and expiring on 26 July 2028

110. Mr Ziebell had an ‘extensive’ and relevant criminal history including for offences of serious violence. There was no finding that his moral culpability was reduced. His role in the offending included the direct infliction of substantial violence on the victim. I have accepted that Mr Ziebell exerted a level of control over the offender because of the dynamics of their intimate relationship.

111. The offender’s role, whilst critical to the overall success of the enterprise, can be distinguished from that of Mr Ziebell and Ms Watson. I note that the offender is to be sentenced for three offences arising from her involvement in the incident. Co-offender Ziebell was sentenced in relation to six counts which reflected a greater degree of involvement. There is a basis for some difference in outcome as between the co-offenders in light of Mr Ziebell’s extensive criminal history, high degree of culpability and greater role in the offending.

Pleas of guilty

112. The offender entered pleas of guilty to all counts on 30 September 2025 after a criminal case conference.

113. The offender entered pleas of guilty after negotiations with the prosecution which saw the offender confirm she would plead guilty days prior to the entry of the pleas on 30 September 2025. The trial was due to commence on 10 November 2025. The timing of the plea saved the need for a trial. I will reduce the sentence I imposed by around 15% in recognition of the utilitarian value of the pleas.

Criminal history

114. The offender has a criminal history which includes convictions for driving offences, drug offences and dishonestly offences. This limits the leniency that can be afforded to her. I note that these are her only offences of violence.

Time in custody

115. The offender spent one day in custody referrable to these offences prior to her bail being revoked on 21 July 2026. The sentence will be backdated to reflect the period of pre-sentence custody.

Current sentencing practise

116. A range of comparable outcomes were detailed in Ziebell at [110]-[129] and I have had regard to those outcomes. I acknowledge the limitations of comparable sentencing outcomes; they do not define the upper nor lower limits of the sentencing range for an offence. In coming to consider current sentencing practise I bear in mind in the need to ensure the consistent application of legal principle.

Determination

117. As I observed in Ziebell, “[T]he offending involved the use of gratuitous, cruel and painful violence. It was senseless conduct, motivated seemingly only by greed, and it left the victim to rebuild her life around the physical and psychological consequences. There is a compelling need for the sentence imposed to properly recognise the substantial harm done to the victim. Offending such as this must be strongly and unequivocally denounced.” I have accepted the offender’s moral culpability is reduced by virtue of her adverse childhood experience, the effect of which is some moderation of the weight of general deterrence and punishment. This adversity continues to affect the offender’s prospect of rehabilitation because of her ongoing use of illicit substances which in turn elevates the need to protect the community.

118. These sentencing proceedings were delayed permitting the offender the opportunity to explore options for rehabilitation and engage, in particular, in drug rehabilitation. It is most unfortunate that the offender has not been able to transform her stated desire for reform into an ongoing commitment to rehabilitation. The offender failed to engage when these proceedings were adjourned after she sought assessment for an ICO. Residential rehabilitation, an intervention which she clearly requires and had expressed desire for, was quickly unsuccessful. To date, she has demonstrated non-compliance with the terms of a suspended sentence order imposed upon her in June 2025 for serious drug offending.

119. The pathway to rehabilitation is not easy and I am not persuaded that rehabilitation is beyond the offender. But sadly for the offender and indeed, for the community, it is plain at this point that she is incapable of genuinely confronting the challenge of her illicit substance use, her related mental health concerns and their role in her engagement with the criminal justice system.

120. It is unsurprising that the offender was assessed as a high risk of general reoffending by the author of the PSR. The author concluded that the offender requires a high level of supervision commensurate to her risk factors. This view is consistent with the views expressed by Ms Edwige.

121. There was no dispute that the offending in this instance warranted the imposition of a sentence of imprisonment. No other sentencing outcome would adequately reflect the gravity of the offending conduct in light of the harm done to the victim. The promotion of the offender’s rehabilitation, if it was a realistic prospect being the best guarantor of community safety, could have provided a strong foundation for a community-based sentence. The offender determined not to pursue rehabilitation options despite the opportunity to do so. That is not to say rehabilitation is no longer a relevant consideration, but the uncertain prospect of it in the current circumstances cannot justify an outcome that would permit her to serve a sentence of imprisonment in the community.

122. In sentencing the offender for multiple offences, I bear in mind that the offending occurred as one episode of criminal conduct as part of a joint criminal enterprise. I have heeded the caution issued by the Court of Appeal in Singh v The Queen [2015] ACTCA 65 at [113]: Just as in the case of the abduction offence, it is necessary to draw a distinction between the criminality involved in the confinement and the criminality involved in the offences committed in the course of the confinement. Otherwise, the offender will be punished twice for the same conduct.

123. The offending involved separate offences but was one criminal enterprise which warrants a substantial degree of concurrency. Consistent with the recommendations made by Ms Edwge, extracted above at [107], the offender will require extensive support upon her release to the community. Along with the offender’s reduced moral culpability the need for a structured regime of supervision in the community supports an outcome which includes a lengthy period on parole. The prosecution accepted that this justifies the imposition of a lower than ‘usual’ non-parole period.

124. The starting point for the count of recklessly inflict grievous bodily harm (joint commission) (CC2024/4535) is 2 years and 6 months of imprisonment reduced to 2 years, 1 month and 5 days of imprisonment in recognition of the plea of guilty.

125. The starting point for the count of forcible confinement (joint commission) (CC2024/12337) is 3 years and 6 months of imprisonment reduced to 2 years, 11 months and 21 days of imprisonment in recognition of the plea of guilty.

126. The starting point for the charge of minor theft (CC2024/4536) is 4 months of imprisonment reduced to 3 months and 12 days of imprisonment in recognition of her plea of guilty.

Orders

127. For those reasons, I make the following orders: (1) On the charge of minor theft (CC2024/4536) the offender is convicted and sentenced to 3 months and 12 days of imprisonment to start on 20 July 2026 and end on 31 October 2026. (2) On the charge of recklessly inflict grievous bodily harm (joint commission) (CC2024/4535) the offender is convicted and sentenced to 2 years, 1 month and 5 days of imprisonment to start on 20 July 2026 and end on 24 August 2028. (3) On the charge of forcible confinement (joint commission) (CC2024/12337) the offender is convicted and sentenced to 2 years, 11 months and 21 days of imprisonment to start on 4 September 2026 and end on 24 August 2029. (4) The total period of imprisonment is 3 years, 1 month and 5 days. The non-parole period starts on 20 July 2026 and will end on 20 December 2027. I direct that the Sentence Administration Board be provided with a copy of the report prepared by Ms Edwige and recommend that the conclusions contained therein with respect to the supports required for the offender be encompassed by the conditions imposed upon the offender by parole supervision.

I certify that the preceding one hundred and twenty-seven [127] numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Sentence her Honour Justice Taylor. Associate: Date: 25 August 2026