DPP v Ziebell [2025] ACTSC 471

[2025] ACTSC 471

Supreme Court of the ACT|2025-10-21|Before: Taylor J

View on the ACT Courts

At a glance

Source facts

Court

Supreme Court of the ACT

Decision date

2025-10-21

Before

Taylor J

Catchwords

CRIMINAL LAW – JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE –
Judgment and Punishment – Sentence – forcible confinement –
recklessly inflict grievous bodily harm – reckless threat to inflict
grievous bodily harm – intentionally and unlawfully

Source

Original judgment source is linked above.

Catchwords

CRIMINAL LAW – JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE –Judgment and Punishment – Sentence – forcible confinement –recklessly inflict grievous bodily harm – reckless threat to inflictgrievous bodily harm – intentionally and unlawfullychoke, suffocate orstrangle – assault occasioning actual bodily harm – minor theft– joint criminal enterprise– high degree of responsibility –guarded prospects of rehabilitation – extensive criminal history –oneepisode of criminal conduct as part of a joint criminal enterprise –offender convicted and sentenced to six years and sixmonths of imprisonment

Judgment

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 Ziebell Citation: [2025] ACTSC 471 Hearing Date: 20 October 2025 Decision Date: 21 October 2025 Before: Taylor J Decision: See [147]. Catchwords: CRIMINAL LAW – JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Judgment and Punishment – Sentence – forcible confinement – recklessly inflict grievous bodily harm – reckless threat to inflict grievous bodily harm – intentionally and unlawfully choke, suffocate or strangle – assault occasioning actual bodily harm – minor theft – joint criminal enterprise – high degree of responsibility – guarded prospects of rehabilitation – extensive criminal history – one episode of criminal conduct as part of a joint criminal enterprise – offender convicted and sentenced to six years and six months of imprisonment Legislation Cited: Crimes (Sentencing) Act 2005 (ACT), ss 7, 36 Crimes Act 1900 (ACT), ss 20, 24(1), 28(2)(a), 31, 34, 321 Criminal Code 2002 (ACT), s 45A Cases Cited: Bugmy v The Queen [2013] HCA 37; 249 CLR 571 Cole v The Queen [2019] ACTCA 3 Director of Public Prosecutions v Padreny [2024] ACTCA 4 DPP v Paff [2023] ACTSC 259 Evans v R [2021] ACTCA 19 KR v The Queen [2012] NSWCCA 32 Le Clair v The Queen; Achanfuo-Yeboah v The Queen [2017] ACTCA 19 R v Cajina [2021] ACTSC 353 R v Cowling [2019] ACTSC 138 R v Evans [2020] ACTSC 285 R v Henry [1999] NSWCCA 111; 46 NSWLR 346 R v JW [2010] NSWCCA 49; 77 NSWLR 7 R v Sharp [2019] ACTCA 7 R v Stott [2020] ACTSC 284 R v Williams [2016] ACTSC 389 Singh v The Queen [2015] ACTCA 65 Stott v The Queen [2021] ACTCA 18 Stott v The Queen [2012] ACTCA 33 The Queen v Avery [2018] ACTCA 57 Will v the Queen (No 2) [2021] ACTCA 14 Parties: Director of Public Prosecutions Raymond Kevin Ziebell (Offender) Representation: Counsel G Meikle (DPP) J Sabharwal (Offender) Solicitors ACT Director of Public Prosecutions Tu'ulakitau McGuire Lawyers (Offender) File Number: SCC 142 of 2024 SCC 405 of 2024 TAYLOR J: Introduction

On 9 December 2023, the offender and Casey-Lee Pricsina 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 Ms Pricsina had left.
At about 10:30pm on 10 December 2023, the victim was asleep when Ms Pricsina knocked on the front door. The victim’s daughter, [redacted], did not answer. Ms Pricsina then proceeded to knock on the back door. She was upset and calling out for the victim. [The victim’s daughter] answered the door and asked Ms Pricsina if she was okay. Ms Pricsina said that she needed to use the victim’s phone to call her boyfriend with whom she had had a fight. [The victim’s daughter] attempted to wake the victim, but the victim was in a deep sleep. [The victim’s daughter] then offered for Ms Pricsina to use her own phone to contact her boyfriend. Ms Pricsina then messaged the offender and attempted to call him several times via the Messenger application using [the victim’s daughter’s] Facebook profile.
[The victim’s daughter] again attempted to wake the victim, this time successfully. [The victim’s daughter] told the victim that “that girl” was in the backyard. The victim got up and went to the front door where she saw Ms Pricsina and let her inside. Ms Pricsina told the victim that she’d had a fight with her boyfriend. Meanwhile, [the victim’s daughter] retreated to her bedroom.
The victim and Ms Pricsina 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.
The offender arrived about 10 minutes after Ms Pricsina’s arrival. The victim let the offender inside. From her bedroom, [the victim’s daughter] observed a black Audi pull up outside the house and heard a male enter the residence.
About 5-10 minutes after the offender’s arrival, Ms Pricsina suggested that the three of them drive to McDonald’s. The victim said that she did not want to go, but Ms Pricsina talked her into it. The victim, the offender and Ms Pricsina then left and got into the offender’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 Ms Pricsina arrive at her house in the previous day.
Kristie Lee Watson was already seated in the backseat of the offender’s vehicle behind the driver’s seat, but the victim did not realise that she was inside the car when she first got in. The offender got into the driver’s seat, Ms Pricsina got into the front passenger seat, and the victim got into the rear passenger seat.
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 (count 3: forcible confinement).
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 (summary transfer offence: minor theft).
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.
At another point during the car journey, Kristie Lee Watson punched the victim in the face about two times (count 6: assault occasioning actual bodily harm) and struck her in the face with a long metal bat about three times, causing the victim’s right lateral incisor tooth to dislodge (count 1: recklessly inflict grievous bodily harm). The offender was driving at the time and was not physically responsible for the tooth avulsion.
The offender drove the vehicle through the Woden and Weston Creek area, before eventually bringing the vehicle to a stop. Once he brought the vehicle to a stop, the offender 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 (count 4: make reckless threat to inflict grievous bodily harm).
He 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 (count 5: choke/suffocate/strangle; count 6: assault occasioning actual bodily harm). The victim managed to get out of the car and started to run away. The offender and Ms Watson chased the victim, and one of them tripped the victim over. The victim pleaded with the offender 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.
Meanwhile, [the victim’s daughter] awoke and discovered that the victim had left the residence. She became concerned and attempted to call her mother at least four times.
[Redacted], 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, [redacted] 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. [Redacted] 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 [redacted], did not open the door at first out of concern for his safety. [Redacted], asked the victim what she was doing there, and the victim responded by screaming for help. [Redacted] told the victim that he was going to call the police, to which the victim replied “please call the police”. [Redacted] contacted the guard hut for assistance at 12:48am, and then called police at 12:49am from a landline, 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. [Redacted] then requested police return his call on his mobile phone.
While [redacted] was on the phone to police, [redacted], a security guard who was stationed at the guard hut, and [redacted], another Icon Water employee, attended to assist with the situation. [The security guard] 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. [The security guard] recalls that the victim mentioned the name “Cassie”.
They eventually let the victim into the building where they offered her a space blanket, a chair, and a drink of water.
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.
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.
The victim underwent a clinical forensic medical examination conducted by Dr [redacted] at 12:17pm on 11 December 2023 at Canberra Hospital. Dr [redacted] made the following findings: (a) [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. (b) [The victim] sustained injuries to her head, including a laceration, traumatic tooth avulsion, abrasions, redness, and tenderness. (c) [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.
The victim was admitted to The Canberra Hospital and discharged on 13 December 2023. Investigation and arrests
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].
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.
On 12 December 2023, police obtained search warrants and section 3LA orders for the following: (a) Kristie Watson; (b) [Redacted], the address of Ms Watson; (c) Raymond Ziebell; (d) Casey-Lee Pricsina; (e) [Redacted], the address of the offender and Ms Pricsina; (f) Black Audi bearing NSW registration [redacted].
The search warrant for [the address of the offender and Ms Pricsina] 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.
A number of items were seized in the course of the execution of the search warrant at [the address of the offender and Ms Pricsina]. 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.
The black Audi was forensically examined and searched. The following findings of note were made: (a) 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; (b) Raymond Ziebell’s fingerprints were found in numerous locations; (c) Kristie Watson’s fingerprint was found on the rear driver side door; (d) 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 of the handle. There is extremely strong support for the proposition that the offender and Casey-Lee Pricsina are contributors to this profile; (e) 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.
The offender, Ms Pricsina, and three other persons were inside the residence at the time the search warrant was executed at [the address of the offender and Ms Pricsina]. At about 2:54pm, the section 3LA order was executed on the offender. The offender provided a passcode for his mobile phone, but not for the CCTV system installed at the residence.
The offender participated in a record of interview on the afternoon of 12 December 2023.
In his Record of Interview, the offender stated: (a) He and “Casey” were doing a fencing job for the victim, who they had met about a week ago through an old friend named [redacted]; (b) He had a disagreement with Casey, who went around to the victim’s house; (c) Casey then messaged him using the victim’s daughter’s Messenger account telling him to come over to the victim’s house; (d) He got a lift to the victim’s house from a friend and they all had a drink; (e) They all decided to go to McDonald’s for a drink, so he went out to the car and waited for Casey and the victim; (f) Casey and the victim got into the vehicle; (g) Casey was driving, he was in the front passenger seat, and the victim was in the backseat; (h) They got as far as around the corner when the victim jumped out, saying that she wanted to get her phone; (i) He and Casey went home; (j) While he and Casey were in the shower, his friend [redacted] turned up in a crying, drunken state; (k) Kristie Watson was not with them that night, but he knows Kristie Watson as she is the sister of his old friend [redacted].
At about 5:25pm on 12 December 2023, the offender was arrested and conveyed to the ACT Regional Watch House.
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.
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).
Cellebrite examination conducted of the offender’s mobile phone revealed messages sent via the Facebook Messenger application between the offender’s Facebook profile and “[redacted]”, the Facebook profile of [the victim’s daughter]. A number of messages had been “unsent”.
The victim’s phone and keys have not been located.

The maximum penalty for each offence is a ‘yardstick’ by which to measure the objective seriousness of the offence. In coming to assess the nature and circumstances of the offending I must consider the objective seriousness of the conduct establishing the offence and where the offending falls on the spectrum from the least serious example of the offence to the most serious example of the offence.
The consequence of participation in a joint criminal enterprise is liability or responsibility for all the 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 liability or responsibility and moral culpability are relevant at different stages of the criminal process: KR at [20]. The moral culpability of an individual participant is assessed by reference to the specific conduct they engaged in as well as their subjective circumstances “in order to determine the appropriate degree of punishment”: KR at [22]. It follows that an assessment of the objective seriousness of a joint criminal enterprise offence will have limits to the amount of differentiation amongst co-offenders: Stott v The Queen [2012] ACTCA 33 at [64], citing R v JW [2010] NSWCCA 49; 77 NSWLR 7 with approval.
With those principles in mind, I turn to consider the features of each offence which inform the assessment I am required to perform.
There is an overarching circumstance which applies to all the offences. I am satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that the offending was planned. The circumstances of the victim being persuaded to get into the vehicle included subterfuge and one of the co-accused ‘lay in wait’ in the vehicle. The inescapable inference from the agreed facts is that the victim’s drink was spiked by the co-offender Pricsina and/or the offender to facilitate the offending. 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.

The Court of Appeal in Director of Public Prosecutions v Padreny [2024] ACTCA 4 at [131] per McWilliam and Abraham JJ noted: For this offence, without being exhaustive, the following have been referred to: (1) the length of time during which the “choking” persisted; (2) the amount of force used; (3) whether the victim’s breathing was restricted; (4) whether verbal threats were made at the time of the choking; (5) whether the victim sustained any injuries; (6) whether any aides like rope or cable were used; (7) the vulnerabilities of the victim; (8) whether the conduct was deliberate and sustained, designed to threaten and inflict harm; and (9) whether the conduct occurred in a family violence context: see for example, R v Bonfield [2021] ACTSC 362 (Bonfield) at [68]-[69]; DPP v Linsley [2023] ACTSC 255 at [12]; and DPP v Rohrlach [2023] ACTSC 166 (Rohrlach). These features are not to be treated as a checklist.
The prosecution conceded that the duration of the act was unknown however I observe it was long enough and with sufficient force to see the victim unable to breathe. The act occurred in the context of an episode of violence and abuse conduct. The victim was found to have redness on her neck and tenderness of her cervical spine. The conduct was deliberate and occurred in an effort to frighten and subdue the victim.
The offender deliberately and directly perpetrated the conduct. In my view, this is a serious example of this offence. Count 6: Assault occasioning actual bodily harm
The conduct making up this offence came immediately after count 2. This offence involved a high degree of violence perpetrated directly by two separate participants including the offender. Co-accused Watson punched the victim in the face twice and the offender placed his knee into the victim’s chest and also punched her in the face.
The victim suffered pain and sustained many injuries revealed in the photographs and described in a medical report including cuts, abrasions, a black eye and other bruising and swelling.
The offender was the direct perpetrator of actual violence in this serious example of the offence.

Before me was a pre-sentence report (PSR) prepared in October 2024 and another prepared in October 2025. Taken together with the submissions made on his behalf by Mr Sabharwal at the sentencing hearing as well as evidence adduced in the proceeding, the offenders’ subjective factors can be summarised as follows.
The offender is now 47 years of age. He was born and raised in Canberra and is one of four children. His parents separated when he was 3 years old and he resided predominantly with his mother.
The offender moved to NSW with his mother and three sisters [redacted]. Following this move the offender had no contact with his father for many years and has minimal contact with him now.
The offender has a supportive relationship with his sister with whom he resides, and a positive relationship with his mother who lives nearby. He reported having a close relationship his other two sisters who live interstate however acknowledged contact with them is infrequent.
The offender has four children. The eldest two of whom are now adults he remains in contact with via social media as they live interstate. [Redacted]. [Redacted]. The offender is single and acknowledged his previous relationship had been strained due to illicit substance use by both he and his partners.
The offender has been living with one of his sisters and her young daughter since he was released from custody in January 2025. The PSR author noted ACT Housing advised has no record of the offender residing in an ACT Housing property which may affect the tenancy.
The offender ceased formal education prior to completing Year 9 and reported he did not enjoy school. He reported having completed a qualification in spray painting and worked in this industry for approximately nine years. The offender ceased working in 2014 as he was assessed as eligible for the disability support pension and has not worked since. The offender has indicated a desire to gain employment in the future. The offender is in receipt of a disability support pension and did not report experiencing any financial hardship or debt. He admitted he gambles but denied this is problematic. The offender is not charged rent or utilities by his sister however she will not be able to support him long term due to her own financial position.
The offender reported having pro-social friends, most of whom lived interstate. He acknowledged several of his associates engaged in illicit substance use however he claimed to have distanced himself from them. The offender reported no involvement with organised pro-social activities in the community however advised he spends his spare time with his son.
The offender reported problematic consumption of both alcohol and drugs from a young age. He reported having begun consuming alcohol at 13 years of age and noted he would consume up to one bottle per day with the aim of ‘getting drunk as often as possible’. [Redacted]. He reported at the height of this alcohol use he would consume a bottle of moonshine and two bottles of spirits in one day. The offender acknowledged he did not recall periods of his life due to his level of intoxication however was aware he returned a high blood alcohol level when arrested for his last driving charge. The offender claimed he has not consumed alcohol since his release from custody.
The offender also disclosed a long history of polysubstance use. He reported he commenced using cannabis at age 14 and would smoke a joint sporadically up until age 17 when his cannabis used ceased. At age 18 the offender began using amphetamines and reported using a ‘point’ every few days for a month when he ceased use due to his reliance on alcohol. The offender reported he used MDMA for a brief period at age 26 before commencing methamphetamine use at age 28. He noted a brief period of cocaine use at age 30 but advised the substance had been too expensive to continue using.
The offender acknowledged he had consistently used methamphetamine since age 28 and that his consumption had escalated to problematic levels. He reported that at the height of his addiction he would use approximately three grams ‘every second to third day’. The offender reported he had recently completed the Karralika Matrix program, however reported that he had failed in his attempt to cease methamphetamine use. He claimed to have been able to reduce his current use to ‘half a point’ every fortnight.
The offender completed the Solaris program in custody on 6 September 2024.
The offender reported a diagnosis of Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD), anxiety and depression. He reported he was currently medicated for these conditions and experienced variations in the stability of his mental health. The offender acknowledged his engagement with mental health treatment had been inconsistent.
The offender claimed he had recently begun experiencing heart pain and had spent time in the Intensive Care Unit after heart arrythmia’s and his heart having stopped. The PSR author noted this information was unverified and information from Canberra Health Service did not confirm a diagnosis.
The offender was granted bail in January 2025 to participate in a residential rehabilitation program. The offender did not complete the program and was exited due to his failure to achieve completion requirements.
The offender gave evidence at the proceedings and confirmed he remains living with this sister in an ACT Housing property. He is not on the lease for her property, but his sister intends to add him to it. He said the living arrangement is stable and can continue. Consistent with a certificate tendered in the proceedings the offender accessed counselling at Relationships Australia. A letter confirmed he had attended six sessions of counselling between February 2025 and October 2025 [redacted].
The offender gave evidence that he is “100 per cent” committed to addressing his issues with drug and alcohol use which he said was connected to his “trauma”. He confirmed he has been reporting daily to police on bail and has submitted to breath analysis on occasion. He has not been subject to drug testing.
The offender described more recent health issues to do with his heart. He did not recall exactly when but described an incident which occurred “probably a month or two ago” when he was taken to hospital by ambulance. He said his mother collected him from the hospital.
The offender explained that he has regular contact with his now six-year-old son. In cross-examination he clarified that his contact with him recommenced after a period of no contact just prior to the most recent school holidays. He said that he now has contact with his son three or four days a week, his son stays with him every weekend and he had care of him through the school holidays.
The offender characterised himself as “genuine” in his desire to pursue rehabilitation saying, “he will not deviate”. The offender explained that he had read the victim impact statement and heard it read aloud. He said he was “sad” that “something like this has happened” and “he feels sad for the lady”
The offender said he had a staph infection that meant he could not continue with the Karalika program in May 2025. The infection began “about a month” after he began the program and resolved “around” June 2025.
A letter from Karralika confirmed that the offender contacted Karalika on 2 September 2025 to enquire about resuming their program, but they did not have any places available. The offender then engaged with the Canberra Recovery Hub (CRH) on 15 September 2025 and a letter from CRH explained that a “clinical decision” was made to refer the offender for one-on-one supports through Everyman and Catholic Care. The referral was made on 17 October 2025.
The offender’s mother gave evidence. She is a support worker and currently trying to “sort” something out with respect to the offender living with her. She said she became aware that the offender had been rushed to hospital about “six weeks ago”. She said she went straight to hospital, and he was released the next day. She said there was no discharge paperwork provided. On another occasion two to three weeks ago he was again taken to hospital and released the next day. Discharge paperwork was provided on that occasion. The offender’s mother explained that it was her understanding that the offender has “arrhythmia” which she said she has herself and medial professionals could not identify the cause of it for the offender.
The offender’s mother described “constant” contact with the offender whilst he has been on bail and that she tries to provide him with consistent support. She said the offender has had a “hard life” and a “traumatised life” and that they constantly talk about rehabilitation. She described the offender as having a “close bond” with his son [redacted]. She said the offender’s contact with his son was longer that he had indicated in his evidence. Responsibility, remorse and rehabilitation
The offender bears a high degree of responsibility for his role in the criminal enterprise. The offender was at all times actively involved in the enterprise and directly perpetrated several offences which included acts of significant violence. The violence used by the offender facilitated the offending, maintained and escalated an environment of fear and resulted in significant harm to the victim. His drug use at the time of the offending perhaps goes some way to explaining his conduct but it does not excuse it or mitigate the seriousness of it.
The remarks attributed to the offender by the PSR author disputed aspects of his involvement and attempted to apportion blame to the victim. The conclusion of the report author that the offender “[did] not fully understand the peril his actions placed the victim in, which required her to attempt to defend herself” can be readily accepted. That conclusion mirrored my own impression of the offender’s attempt to express remorse in the witness box.
He said in evidence that he was “sad” that “something like this happened”. His language seemed to distance himself from the events. Of course, this event was not something that just “happened” to the victim; it was an event brought about directly by the deliberate acts of the offender and his co-offenders. The offender did say that he would be prepared to participate in a restorative justice process which I accept as some indication, consistent with his plea of guilty, of acceptance of responsibility.
On balance, I am satisfied that the offender has demonstrated some genuine remorse.
The offender has been subject to multiple supervised community-based orders in the past and was recorded to have displayed poor compliance with community-based orders, with breach action initiated on multiple occasions predominantly due to reoffending. The offender did successfully complete an order in 2022, however he was recorded to have made little effort to attend alcohol and drug treatment programs. This is a consistent theme for the offender.
The offender did not complete the Karralika rehabilitation program which was the purpose of a grant of bail in January 2025. The offender was granted bail after a substantial period on remand and after completing the Solaris program. In evidence, the offender presented his inability to complete the program as arising from a “staph” infection, but counsel confirmed his failure to complete arose directly from his failure to achieve the requirements of the program. The offender told the PSR author that he had been unable to achieve abstinence from methamphetamine use.
The offender initially sought referral to the Drug and Alcohol Sentencing Court for the making of a Drug and Alcohol Treatment Order. Perhaps unsurprisingly in light of the history I have outlined, the offender was found unsuitable for such an order.
The offender continues to express a desire to address his substance misuse. I acknowledge that the pathway to rehabilitation is not always linear. The offender is no longer a young man. His history must have demonstrated to him the challenges which continue to see him interact with the criminal justice system. The offender has some insight identifying that he uses alcohol as a coping mechanism and alcohol is a gateway for him to illicit substance use. Despite this insight, and the opportunity provided to him to demonstrate whilst on bail and with the sentence for these offences outstanding, his commitment to rehabilitation after a lengthy period on remand the offender was unable to finalise his participation in rehabilitation. He continued to use methamphetamine though claimed he had not used alcohol since he was granted bail.
The offender’s evidence about the effort he has made with respect to rehabilitation since his exit from the Karralika program in May 2025 was not persuasive. He initially said he had engaged in counselling since that time and when it was pointed out to him that the Relationships Australia letter recorded a session on 22 May 2025 and the next session on 17 October 2025, he did not offer any other counselling service with whom he had engaged.
In my view the evidence demonstrates that the offender did not actively seek out other rehabilitation supports after he was removed from the Karralika program in May 2025 until at best, August 2025. He contacted Karralika on 2 September 2025 and engaged with CRH on 15 September 2025. This timing reflects his understanding that these proceedings were fast approaching.
Whilst I am satisfied that the offender considers himself “genuine” when he expresses his desire to meaningfully pursue rehabilitation, his efforts on bail say otherwise.
I accept that the offender has not reoffended since the commission of these offences, but it must be recalled that he was on remand for a significant period. I acknowledge that he has been on bail without incident since January 2025 and he appears to have loving and supportive family members who want better for him. He is attempting to rebuild a relationship with his small son who would benefit no doubt from a positive father figure.
In light of the offender’s more recent failure to take full advantage of the opportunity provided to him on bail and the role that drug use has played in his history of interaction with the criminal justice system, including in the commission of these offences, at best I am guarded about the offender’s prospect of rehabilitation. Parity
Co-offender Pricsina has yet to be sentenced, and co-accused Watson died in August 2025.

Evans involved the co-offender of Stott. The offender was found guilty at trial of one count of forcible confinement, one count of intentionally inflicting actual bodily harm and one count of making a demand accompanied by a threat. Together with Stott, the offender unlawfully confined the victim for one hour. During confinement the co-offender, made demands of the victim to pay the sum of $20,000. The offender was armed with a baseball act and made multiple threats of serious physical injury.
The offender attacked the victim with a baseball bat, and the victim armed himself with a knife. The victim sustained a 5cm left-sided parieto-occipital laceration with a surrounding 3cm haematoma which required suturing, as well as multiple bruises and swellings to his upper limbs and upper chest. The offender was intoxicated at the time of the offending and had a lengthy criminal history for offences of violence and dishonesty.
Whilst not recorded in the table provided by the prosecutor, as in Stott the sentence imposed by the sentencing judge was the subject of an appeal by the offender. The Court of Appeal concluded that error made in Stott was also made in the offender’s case and the offender was re-sentenced as follows (Evans v R [2021] ACTCA 19): (a) On the count of unlawful confinement, 30 months of imprisonment. (b) On the count of making demand accompanied by threat, 30 months of imprisonment. (c) On the count of intentionally inflicting actual bodily harm, 24 months of imprisonment.
The total sentence imposed was three years and six months of imprisonment. The Queen v Avery [2018] ACTCA 57
The offender was charged with one count of forcible confinement, one count of demand accompanied by threats, one count of trafficking in controlled drug other than cannabis, one count of unlawful possession of stolen property, and one count of possess cannabis. The offender was found to be the instigator of the offence of forcible confinement alongside 5 co-offenders, and the offence of forcible confinement was found to be an extremely serious example of the offence.
A prosecution appeal did not challenge the 35 per cent discount allocated by the sentencing judge and succeeded on a ground which alleged that the sentence of 16 months of imprisonment with a non-parole period of 12 months was manifestly inadequate. The offender had a minimal criminal history, previous association with an outlaw motorcycle gang, a history of drug use and undiagnosed and untreated mental health issues. Citing Singh v The Queen [2015] ACTCA 65 the Court of Appeal observed at [31]: In Singh, this Court surveyed comparable cases about unlawful confinement where violence was present, noting that they usually attract a sentence of between two and five years’ imprisonment, with the high sentences being reserved for matters involving a high level of violence causing physical injury or threatening to cause injury or death, and where the offender had a significant criminal history: Singh at [108].
The offender had served the sentenced by the time the appeal judgment was delivered. The Court observed that sentences imposed on the co-offenders which were not the subject of a prosecution appeal were “undoubtedly lenient” and that “the sentences imposed upon the co-offenders provide a basis for the early suspension of the sentences imposed upon the respondent”: at [41]. The Court of Appeal determined that the offending warranted an overall sentence of 4 years of imprisonment: at [39]. After the application of the reduction to which the offender was entitled, he was re-sentenced on appeal as follows to a total term of two years and seven months of imprisonment: (a) For the count of unlawful confinement, the offender was sentenced to two years and seven months of imprisonment suspended upon on entering into a good behaviour order for a period of almost 2 years. (b) For the count of trafficking in controlled drug other than cannabis the offender was sentenced to nine months of imprisonment upon entering into a good behaviour order. (c) For the count of demand accompanied by threats the offender was sentenced to 12 months of imprisonment. (d) For the count of unlawful possession of stolen property, the offender was convicted and sentenced to three months of imprisonment. (e) For the count of possessing cannabis the offender was convicted and sentenced to three months of imprisonment.

The first appellant, Mr Le Clair, and second appellant, Mr Achanfuo-Yeboah, both committed one count of forcible confinement and one count of trafficking in a trafficable quantity of cannabis. The offending occurred in the context of a failed drug deal whereby the appellants became angry with the victim. The first appellant produced a knife and held the victim at knifepoint in a vehicle. The second appellant drove the vehicle from whilst the first appellant repeatedly threatened the victim, stating he would break the victim’s bones, cut off his fingers, and tattoo the word “dog” on his face. One of the appellants called for additional support. The victim escaped the car at this point however was recaptured after which he was struck on the head with a baseball bat. The victim was driven to a remote location in NSW where he was further assaulted and abandoned.
The first appellant had a troubled childhood, problematic substance abuse which commenced in his teenage years, and mental health issues. The first appellant also had a criminal history including offences which were traffic-related, aggravated burglary, minor theft, and assault occasioning actual bodily harm. The first appellant was sentenced to a partially concurrent sentence as follows: (a) On the count of forcible confinement, the offender was convicted and sentenced to three years and six months of imprisonment. (b) On the count of trafficking in a trafficable quantity of cannabis the offender was convicted and sentenced to twelve months of imprisonment.
The second appellant had come to Australia at age 12 and displayed little victim empathy. He had been previously assaulted in custody, his partner was pregnant and had reduced his significant use of cannabis. The second appellant was sentenced to a partially concurrent sentence as follows: (a) On the count of forcible confinement, the offender was convicted and sentenced to two years and 11 months of imprisonment. (b) On the count of trafficking in a trafficable quantity of cannabis the offender was convicted and sentenced to 12 months of imprisonment.

The purposes of sentencing are set out in s 7 of the Crimes (Sentencing) Act. In this matter general deterrence and punishment feature as considerations which carry significant weight. The 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.
The offender was assessed as a high risk of re-offending by the PSR author, noting his poor compliance with community-based orders and recidivism. The author considered that the offender would likely benefit from intensive interventions to address his illicit substance use, as well as engagement in specific anger management programs. The offender’s capacity to translate his wish for reform into substantive action, in light of his history, must be doubted. The sentence imposed must deter the offender and protect the community.
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 grave nature of the offences. The proper application of sentencing principles in my view requires a severe sentence to reflect the gravity of the offending and to adequately punish the offender, to deter others who may be minded to similarly offend, to make clear that the conduct is unacceptable and to recognise the substantial harm done to the victim.
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 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.
The offending involved separate offences such that the sentence imposed on one cannot entirely comprehend the other and the victim occasioned separate harm arising from the commission of individual offences. The sentence must be just and appropriate and not be disproportionate to the criminality involved.
The structure will see a degree of concurrency as between the offences. Even with substantial overlap the sentence will be a heavy one. As the Court of Appeal in Director of Public Prosecutions v Padreny [2024] ACTCA 4 observed at [169(c)] “there comes a point when general and specific deterrence objectives are met and imposing further lengthy terms of imprisonment for every sentence does little to achieve the objectives of denunciation and recognition of harm to the victim”.
The starting point for the charge of minor theft (joint commission) (CC2024/4524) is 4 months of imprisonment reduced to 2 months and 24 days of imprisonment in recognition of his plea of guilty.
The starting point for the count of forcible confinement (joint commission) (CC2024/4523) is 4 years of imprisonment reduced to 2 years, 9 months and 18 days of imprisonment in recognition of his plea of guilty.
The starting point for the count of intentionally and unlawfully choke, suffocate or strangle another person (joint commission) (CC2024/4525) is 3 years of imprisonment reduced to 2 years, 1 month and 5 days of imprisonment in recognition of his plea of guilty.
The starting point for the count of recklessly inflict grievous bodily harm (joint commission) (CC2024/1156) is 3 years of imprisonment reduced to 2 years, 1 month and 5 days of imprisonment in recognition of his plea of guilty.
The starting point for the count of assault occasioning actual bodily harm (joint commission) (CC2024/4527) is 2 years of imprisonment reduced to 1 year, 4 months and 22 days of imprisonment in recognition of his plea of guilty.
The starting point for the count of reckless threat to inflict grievous bodily harm (joint commission) (CC2024/4526) is 2 years of imprisonment reduced to 1 year, 4 months and 22 days of imprisonment in recognition of his plea of guilty.
I have taken into account the effect of the sentence on the offender’s young son. The offender’s son is not presently in his fulltime care, though I accept that a period of imprisonment served full-time will necessarily disrupt the reestablishment of their relationship. I also accept that a return to fulltime custody after a period on bail will be challenging for the offender. Neither consideration in isolation or combination in this instance should undermine the purposes of sentencing or justify the extension of undue leniency to the offender. The offender’s progress whilst on bail was a matter firmly within his control. His exit from the Karralika program in May 2025 and his decision to delay attempts to re-engage in any rehabilitative program are indications of the extent to which he is committed to his own reform.
Counsel for the offender submitted that I should consider suspending any further period of imprisonment to give effect to the offender’s prospect of rehabilitation. As he accepted such an outcome would be based on a mere hope, in view of the offender’s lacklustre effort whilst on bail and his history, that he might decide to meaningfully engage in his own rehabilitation.
In my view the suspension of any further period of imprisonment would be unduly lenient. The seriousness of the offending demands a sentence of fulltime imprisonment. The offender does not present with a compelling case for rehabilitation. Even partially suspending the sentence would be to give effect to an uncertain prospect of rehabilitation and allow it to overwhelm the sentencing task. Should the offender maintain a desire to address his use of drugs and alcohol the parole authorities will be well placed to assess his needs.
A period of imprisonment is warranted for each offence, the time already served in pre-sentence custody does not sufficiently reflect the gravity of the offending and for the reasons I have outlined, any further period should be served as full-time imprisonment.
In coming to set a non-parole period I bear in mind the principles expressed in Cole v The Queen [2019] ACTCA 3 and the authorities cited therein. A non-parole period is the minimum period that justice requires the offender actually serve. It is determined by reference to the purposes of sentencing, the objective seriousness of the offending and the offender’s subjective circumstances. I am satisfied it is the interest of the community and the interest of the offender that he be subject to a regime of supervision for a substantial period to assist him to transition back to the community upon his release and properly address the factors which underpin his offending conduct. This approach is consistent with the views expressed in the PSR.

DPP v Ziebell [2025] ACTSC 471

At a glance

Court

Decision date

Before

Catchwords

Source

Catchwords

Judgment

Parties

Legislation Cited (1)

Cited By (2)