//
© 2026 Zoe. All rights reserved.
Zoe gives general legal information, not legal advice. For the authoritative text, check the official register of the law's own jurisdiction, such as the Federal Register of Legislation for Commonwealth laws.
[2026] ACTSC 106
General information, not legal advice.
Supreme Court of the ACT
2026-04-23
Baker J
Original judgment source is linked above.
Source: the ACT Courts (www.courts.act.gov.au). Converted to plain text by ZoeLaw. Not the official version.
SUPREME COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY
Case Title: DPP v Towney Citation: [2026] ACTSC 106 Hearing Dates: 17 April 2025; 18 July 2025; 25 September 2025; 16 October 2025; 16 February 2026; 20 March 2026; 13 & 15 April 2026 Decision Date: 23 April 2026 Before: Baker J Decision: (1) For the offence of joint commission aggravated robbery (CAN 3295/2024), the offender is convicted and sentenced to 2 years and 3 months’ imprisonment, commencing on 17 April 2026 and expiring on 16 July 2028. (2) The sentence is to be suspended after 10 months’ imprisonment, from 16 February 2027, upon the offender’s entry into a Good Behaviour Order for the remainder of the sentence with the core conditions. Catchwords: CRIMINAL LAW – JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Judgment and Punishment – Sentence – joint commission aggravated robbery – victim home and assaulted in course of robbery – adjournments of sentencing proceedings to afford offender opportunity for rehabilitation – offender discharged from rehabilitation programs – full-time imprisonment required Legislation Cited: Criminal Code 2002 (ACT) ss 45A, 310 Parties: Director of Public Prosecutions Dennielle Dorothy Towney (Offender) Representation: Counsel H Robinson (DPP) J Masters (Offender) Solicitors ACT Director of Public Prosecutions InPrivate Law (Offender) File Number: SCC 223 of 2024 BAKER J: Introduction
The offender, Dennielle Dorothy Towney, has pleaded guilty to a charge of aggravated robbery, contrary to s 310 of the Criminal Code 2002 (ACT) by virtue of s 45A of the Criminal Code, which carries a maximum penalty of 25 years imprisonment, 2500 penalty units or both. The robbery is aggravated by virtue of it being committed in company.
The offender has a longstanding addiction to drugs, with her drug use commencing with cannabis use when she was 13 years old, before progressing to regular use of heroin, and oxycodone, the latter following the death of her father. The Court has afforded the offender a series of adjournments to enable her to obtain support in achieving drug rehabilitation. Unfortunately, at the present time, the offender’s efforts have not been successful. In these circumstances, and in view of the seriousness of the offence, the only appropriate sentence is one of full-time imprisonment. However, the period of full-time imprisonment that will be imposed will recognise the progress that the offender has made in the period that she has been at liberty.
The offending
Around 4:50pm on 19 November 2023, the offender and three co-offenders (Brett Scott, Danielle Kimmins and Dennis Fisher) drove to a house in Lyneham. They believed that there was a person at the house (Ms R) who would be able to sell them heroin.
Ms R (who was also known as “Trin” or “Trinity”) previously lived at the house in Lyneham, but she did not live there on 19 November 2023. The victim was at home alone at the time that the offenders arrived. Two other people also lived at the property, but they were not home at the time. The victim did not know any of the offenders.
Mr Scott left the car first and knocked on the front door. The victim heard the knock and opened the front door. Mr Scott said to the victim “We know there’s heroin in here. Where’s the heroin”. The victim said that there was no heroin inside. At this point, Ms Kimmins left the car and joined Mr Scott. Ms Kimmins asked where “Trin” was, and said that she had recently seen her at the house. The victim told Ms Kimmins the names of the persons who were now living at the property.
Mr Scott and Ms Kimmins then forced their way into the victim’s home. As this occurred, the offender ran towards the front door. Mr Fisher, who had been sitting on a fence at the edge of the property, joined her.
Once inside, Ms Kimmins physically attacked the victim, by pushing him and trying to kick him. The victim attempted to defend himself by pushing Ms Kimmins back. The victim was forced to the hallway. The offenders started throwing items around the property and again demanded heroin.
Mr Scott stood over the victim and said, “No cops. If the cops get involved, then we’re gonna send some big black guys around.”
Ms Kimmins and the offender assaulted the victim a number of times. During the assault, they struck the victim and attempted to kick him. The victim received scratches on his forearm and upper bicep.
The offender gave evidence that her involvement in the assault was limited to an attempt to separate Ms Kimmins and the victim. I do not accept this evidence, but I do accept that the assault first occurred at Ms Kimmins’, rather than the offender’s, instigation.
During the assault, the victim ‘jumped’ back to the laundry room. The offenders tried to kick the victim whilst he was in the laundry. The victim tried to get out of the laundry by barging at the offenders. He was able to reach the hallway intersection. At this point, one of the offenders pulled the victim’s hair.
Mr Fisher and Mr Scott left the house with property owned by the victim and his housemates, Mr Fisher returning to collect further property. After Mr Scott said “let’s go”, all of the offenders left the house, and drove away.
The following items were stolen, which belonged to the victim and his housemates: (a) A travel case containing two Pioneer 100 Compact Disc Jockey and a Four Channel Mixer; (b) 12 Brookvale ginger beers; (c) A Makita worksite pod coffee machine; (d) Mail articles or paperwork; (e) A baby formula tin containing various keys.
At the time of the offending, the offender was on bail that had been granted by the Magistrates Court with respect to theft, fraud and family violence offences.
The offender was arrested and refused bail in relation to the present charges on 14 March 2024. On 18 June 2024, the offender was sentenced for the offences that she had been on bail for at the time of the current offending, to a total effective sentence of 11 months’ imprisonment, backdated to 9 March 2024 and concluding on 8 February 2025. She was granted bail on 14 February 2025. Accordingly, although the offender has served 338 days of presentence custody, only six days of presentence custody are solely referable to the present offence.
Victim impact statement
The offender’s subjective case
The offender is an Aboriginal woman from Wiradjuri country. She is 34 years old.
The offender’s mother was drug dependent and suffered from mental health issues, which resulted in the offender being placed into foster care from birth. The offender was placed into 42 separate foster homes, before she finally found a stable foster home, where she lived from when she was 11 to 17 years old.
However, the scars of the offender’s early childhood remained. The offender left formal education in year 9, when she was aged 13 or 14 years old. Around this time, the offender commenced smoking cannabis. The offender later developed an addiction to methamphetamines, which she suffered for approximately 5 years before she began using heroin. The offender also became addicted to oxycodone, following the death of her father and two of her siblings. The offender told the Court that these deaths, particularly that of her father, had a “huge effect” on her. She explained to the Court, “I didn’t want to deal with it, so I got on drugs”. Her use of heroin commenced in the context of a domestic violence relationship. That relationship ended when the offender’s partner was sent to jail, but her heroin addiction remained.
The offender was using heroin daily before being remanded in custody in 2024. Since her release in early 2025, the offender has attempted to address her drug addiction. She has succeeded in significantly reducing her heroin use, but has been unable to completely abstain from drug use. She candidly told the Court that her current use of heroin is approximately once per fortnight.
The offender’s challenges with addressing her drug use are made more difficult by her mental health. The offender has reported that she has been diagnosed with bipolar disorder, depression, anxiety, Hashimoto’s autoimmune disease and Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD). Whilst there is no evidence of any formal diagnosis of these conditions, the offender’s evidence accords with the accounts given to Corrective Services. I accept that the offender suffers from a number of mental illnesses.
The offender has a lengthy criminal history in New South Wales and the ACT, which includes offences relating to driving, drug possession offences, theft and burglary, and family violence, including assaults and destruction of property. The offender’s criminal history commenced when she was 22 years old. The offender explained that at that time, she had been in a relationship involving domestic violence, and had used drugs as a means of “escaping”. She said that this led to her “hanging around with the wrong people”.
Procedural history
The offender pleaded guilty to the offence on 25 September 2024, at arraignment.
The matter was first listed for sentence on 17 April 2025. In view of the offender’s long standing addictions and her evidence that she was committed to addressing those addictions, I referred the offender for a Drug and Alcohol Treatment Order (DATO) eligibility screening assessment.
The offender was assessed as eligible for a DATO, and on 18 July 2025, I ordered that a DATO assessment and an updated Intensive Corrections Order Assessment Report (ICOAR) be prepared for the offender.
On 25 September 2025, I received the DATO assessment, DASL suitability assessment and the updated ICOAR. Those reports recorded that the offender was assessed as unsuitable for either a DATO or an ICO, as a result of the degree of the offender’s dependence on controlled drugs, her self-declared psychiatric or psychological disorders, and her unsatisfactory engagement with Canberra Health Services and ACT Corrective Services. However, counsel for the offender advised the Court that the offender had obtained a placement with a rehabilitation centre. I granted the offender an adjournment to 16 October 2025 to enable evidence to be obtained of this placement.
On 16 October 2025, I was informed that the offender had secured a place in a residential rehabilitation program with Toora Women’s Inc. Counsel for the offender urged me to impose a fully suspended sentence so as to allow the offender to engage with that program. I was not satisfied that it was appropriate to impose a suspended sentence at that time. However, in order to give the offender an opportunity to demonstrate her commitment to her rehabilitation, I adjourned the proceedings to 16 February 2026.
On 16 February 2026, I was informed that whilst the offender had attended Toora Women’s Inc from 8 October 2025, she had been discharged from this program due to drug use. I was also informed that the offender had engaged with Canberra Recovery Services (CRS), a residential rehabilitation program, in December 2025, but had been exited from that program when drug paraphernalia was found on site.
However, I was also informed that following her discharge from CRS, the offender had been accepted into the day program with Canberra Recovery Hub (CRH) on 19 January 2026. A representative from CRH, who gave evidence on that occasion, noted that the offender was suspended from participating in the full-time residential program for three months and would be able to return on 16 March 2026. The representative noted that there “may be some leniency” in regard to that date. He said that the offender’s progress had been “a little bit rough to start with”, but that recently she had been “engaging quite well, showing up, being supportive and being there for other clients as well as herself”.
In these circumstances, counsel for the offender sought an adjournment to 1 May 2026 to allow for the completion of the CRH program. I declined to grant an adjournment for such a lengthy period, but allowed an adjournment to 20 March 2026 for the offender to demonstrate her engagement with the CRH program.
The offender did not appear at the hearing on 20 March 2026. The offender’s legal representative advised that the offender was in hospital and was unable to attend court. The Court was also informed that the offender had commenced a residential rehabilitation program with CRS on 16 March 2026. The matter was adjourned to 2 April 2026 for an update to be provided on that occasion. The date for this listing was subsequently adjusted to 13 April 2026.
On 13 April 2026, the Court was provided with a medical certificate relating to the offender’s failure to appear on 20 March 2026. That medical certificate did not indicate that the offender was in hospital. It simply stated that the offender was “not fit for work” on that day.
On the application of the offender’s counsel, the matter was subsequently adjourned to 15 April 2026 for final submissions on sentence. At that hearing, the offender gave evidence that she had become very sick soon after commencing with CRS, and the program had discharged her as they believed she had used drugs onsite. The offender denied this drug use. However, she accepted that she still has a drug problem, and acknowledged that she has been exited from various programs because of her inability to address her drug use. She said that she had cut down her drug use and was trying not to use at all, but that sometimes it “get[s] the better of me and I do use”.
The offender explained that although she had little to no connection with her mother during her childhood years, as an adult, she reconnected with her mother, who was present in court to support her. The offender explained that her mother has medical conditions, including a possible diagnosis of Alzheimer’s, as well as health conditions, including nerve damage which makes her susceptible to falls. The offender said that she is the full-time carer of her mother.
The offender reiterated her commitment to rehabilitation. When asked what her plans are when released from custody, she replied: Honestly, I don’t want to go back to this life. This is not – this isn’t the life that I want to live and its not a life – its not a life for anyone really. But when I get out. I don’t want to go back to the same situation, like, I want to – like, I want to get off this shit. Like, I want to get off the drugs. Like I want to get a job. Like, I want to do things, like, with my life, not just sitting around and doing nothing.
The offender said that she would like to obtain a place in a rehabilitation centre outside of Canberra. She believes that it would be easier to remain drug free outside of Canberra, explaining “its easy when you know people around you to get things that you want”.
The offender’s counsel acknowledged that he had no evidence of any sustained rehabilitation and that a sentence of full-time imprisonment was a “real likelihood” in those circumstances.
Determination
As I held when sentencing Mr Scott, the offending that constituted this offence was serious. The offending involved an invasion of the victim’s home, a place where the victim was entitled to feel safe. Whilst none of the offenders were armed, the offender was in company with three other offenders. The victim was significantly outnumbered by the offenders. The offender joined Ms Kimmins in physically assaulting the victim, who sustained injuries including scratches and bruising, and psychological harm. Nonetheless, whilst the behaviour of the other co-offenders, particularly Mr Scott, indicates that there was a degree of planning involved in the offending, noting that the offender was last to enter the house, I am not satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that she was involved in that planning. I will sentence her on the basis that her involvement was spontaneous. Whilst items of value were taken from the victim and his housemates, there is no evidence that the offender kept any of those items for herself.
Two of the offender’s co-offenders have now been sentenced for their role in the offending. Mr Fisher was sentenced by McWilliam J to a period of imprisonment of 2 years and 3 months, reduced by 15% to take into account Mr Fisher’s plea of guilty following criminal case conference, to a sentence of imprisonment of one year, ten months and 28 days. That sentence was ordered to be served by way of a Drug and Alcohol Treatment Order (DATO). Mr Scott was sentenced by me to a period of imprisonment for 3 years, reduced by 25% in recognition of his early plea of guilty to a period of imprisonment of two years and three months. That sentence was also ordered to be served by way of a DATO. However, that order was subsequently cancelled for non-compliance, and Mr Scott was resentenced to a period of imprisonment of 2 years and 3 months, backdated by 583 days to take account of presentence custody, and suspended after that period (approximately 1 year and 7 months). Ms Kimmins has not been sentenced at this time.
The offender’s role in the offending was more significant than Mr Fisher, who did not physically assault the victim. The offender’s role in the burglary is less significant than Ms Kimmins, who, at least on the agreed facts of the present proceedings, was the instigator of the offending, and started the physical assault which the offender joined. The offender’s role in the offending is roughly equivalent to Mr Scott. Although Mr Scott was sentenced on agreed facts that recorded that he did not physically assault the victim, he was the first person who approached the house, and demanded heroin. He also threatened the victim with retaliation in the event that he made a report to police. The offender was on bail for serious offences at the time of the offending. Mr Fisher was also subject to conditional liberty at the time of the offences, but Mr Scott was not.
Like Mr Scott and Mr Fisher, the offender’s moral culpability is reduced. In the offender’s case, this reduction is by reason of her upbringing, her mental health, and her addictions to drugs, which commenced at an early age, and later escalated in the context of her profound grief in response to the deaths of her father and her siblings. The weight to be given to general deterrence and denunciation is reduced by reason of these matters. There remains, however, a strong need to recognise the harm that was caused by the offending.
The offender gave evidence that that she believed that Ms Kimmins had a right to enter the property, and asserted that she had only intervened to break up the fight between the victim and the other offenders. I do not accept this evidence, which is inconsistent with the agreed facts. In circumstances where the offender is continuing to minimise her involvement in the offending, I do not accept that she has full remorse for the offending.
However, I do accept the offender’s evidence that her time in custody has caused her to reflect on her life. I accept that the offender’s desire to live a life that is free from her drug addictions is genuine.
It is clear that the offender has a challenging task ahead of her in overcoming her drug addictions. As in most cases, rehabilitation, if it can be achieved, will best ensure the protection of the community. It was for this reason that I took the course that has been outlined above, of providing the offender with a number of adjournments to obtain support in her rehabilitation. The reasons for the offender’s inability to take advantage of the adjournments that have been granted are multilayered. It is particularly unfortunate that the DASL cannot accommodate offenders with mental health challenges. However, it must also be recognised that the difficulties are not entirely external to the offender, as seen in her exits from Toora Women’s Inc, CRS and CRH in a short period of time.
This is not to conclude that there is no hope for the offender’s future. As I have already found, the offender has a sincere commitment to her rehabilitation. She has succeeded in significantly reducing her drug use, and since the present offending, she has not engaged in any further criminal offending. These are significant matters which indicate that the offender has strengths which she can draw upon in achieving rehabilitation in the future.
Nonetheless, it remains the case that the offending was serious. The sentence to be imposed must recognise the harm that was caused to the victim by the offender’s conduct. The offender must understand that a decision to engage in this kind of offending will have significant consequences for her life. In the present case, the only option is for the offender to be sentenced to a period of full-time imprisonment.
The sentence to be imposed will be reduced by 25% in recognition of the offender’s early guilty plea at arraignment, and backdated by six days to take account of the time spent by the offender in custody that was solely referrable to these charges. I will also take into account the period of imprisonment which the offender has spent which have been attributed to other charges, particularly in setting the minimum term of full time imprisonment. The starting point of the overall sentence will be three years’ imprisonment, reduced by 25%, to a sentence of 2 years and 3 months.
Recognising the offender’s commitment to her rehabilitation, the progress which the offender has made in reducing her drug use and in not committing further offences, and the hardship which the offender will face in custody by reason of her mental illnesses and her distress in not being able to care for her mother, I will suspend the sentence after 10 months’ imprisonment, on condition that the offender be of good behaviour for the remainder of the sentence.
Orders
I certify that the preceding forty-nine [49] numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Sentence of her Honour Justice Baker . Associate: Date: 26 May 2026
DPP
Towney