IN THE COUNTY COURT OF VICTORIA
AT Melbourne
CRIMINAL DIVISION	Revised
Not Restricted
Suitable for Publication	

DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS		
		
v		
		
HARRIETT COMBS (A PSEUDONYM)  		

---

JUDGE:	HER HONOUR JUDGE TODD 	
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne	
DATE OF HEARING:	18 October 2024 	
DATE OF SENTENCE:	25 October 2024	
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	DPP v Combs (a pseudonym) 	
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2024] VCC 1719 		

REASONS FOR SENTENCE
---

Subject:	CRIMINAL LAW – Sentence 
Catchwords: 	Common law assault; armed robbery. 
Legislation Cited:	Crimes Act 1958 (Vic) ss 320, 75A(2); Sentencing Act 1991 (Vic) ss 5(2H), 86, 6AAA; Confiscation Act 1997 ss 33(1), 33(5)(b). 
Cases Cited:	R v Verdins (2007) 16 VR 269; DPP (Vic) v Nikolaou [2008] VSC 111. 
Sentence:	Total effective sentence of ten months’ imprisonment. 

---

APPEARANCES:
	Counsel	Solicitors	
For the Director of Public Prosecutions	Ms C. Paganis	Office of Public Prosecutions 	
			
For the Accused	Mr D. McGlone	Adrian Paull Criminal Law 	

HER HONOUR:

1	Harriett Combs, you have pleaded guilty to one rolled-up charge of common law assault.  This offence carries a maximum penalty of five years' imprisonment and the charge in this case covers two separate incidents.
2	You have also pleaded guilty to one charge of armed robbery, which carries a maximum penalty of 25 years’ imprisonment.  
3	I note here that Charge 2, armed robbery, is a ‘category 2’ offence, having been committed in company.
Factual Summary 
4	Turning first to the factual summary that underpins this sentence.  A summary of prosecution opening dated 8 July 2024 was tendered on your plea. That document sets out the factual basis for this sentence, and I will refer to parts of it in summary form here. 
5	You were originally charged with two co-offenders: Mr Conor Ballard and 
Mr Lewis Fisher.
6	For about six months from May until November 2020, you were in a relationship with Mr Evan Decker who is the victim in this matter. You moved in together in September or October 2020, but by October 2020 your relationship had been marred by violence. There was a dispute, too, over money; you felt Mr Decker owed you something between $100 and $150. 
Common law assault – incident 1
7	Turning now to the facts underpinning the common law assault charge.  The day before you and Mr Decker ended your relationship, in October 2020, you argued with him at a party at your house. You were drunk and unwell. Mr Decker tried to put you to bed. In this process you kicked, punched, bit and pushed him, and spat in his face; he shoved you and you fell to the ground. You verbally abused him and he apologised, saying he ‘had no other option’. Mr Decker sustained bruising on the right side of his ribs and a cut lip.  This forms the basis of the first incident of the rolled-up charge, Charge 1, common law assault. 
8	The next morning you asked Mr Decker to move out of the rental property that you shared. Mr Decker remained in the property for the next few weeks though; your relationship continued on and off.  
Common law assault – incident 2
9	Incident 2 in relation to the common law assault unfolds in this way. In early November 2020, you and Mr Decker had an argument while you were driving along the Surf Coast Highway. You were driving, Mr Decker was in the front passenger seat. You pulled over and screamed at him, and slapped him across the face. You then apologised, asked him to get out of the car, and drove away. 
10	Mr Decker moved out of the property you shared on 12 November 2020. There was initially little contact between you, until you began asking Mr Decker for the money that he owed for bills from the house. You made a number of requests for this in December 2020, and on 8 December you called Mr Decker and told him that if he did not give you the money by Wednesday you would have people come around to his house and ‘take care of [him] [sic]’. You later apologised for making that threat.  
11	On 21 December 2020, you arranged with Mr Decker to return a jumper he had left in your car.  He was at his work Christmas party at the Peninsula Hotel in Moolap. You drove to the hotel and arranged to meet. 
12	Your co-accused, Mr Ballard and Mr Fisher, followed separately. You texted ‘I’m here’ to Mr Decker when you arrived; he saw you sitting alone in your car in the car park and got into the front passenger seat. When Mr Decker asked you about his jumper, he saw Mr Ballard and Mr Fisher running towards your car. 
13	Mr Ballard and Mr Fisher opened the front passenger door where Mr Decker was sitting. Mr Ballard used an extendable baton to strike Mr Decker across the chest and asked ‘Do you like to abuse women?’. He told Mr Decker that he owed you money, and directed Mr Decker to produce his watch, ring and wallet, which he did. I note that you are not charged with this armed robbery; it is regarded as a distinct event to what followed subsequently.  
14	Mr Ballard looked through Mr Decker’s wallet, took a photo of his driver’s licence and asked him to show him how much money he had on his online banking profile on his phone. 
15	While that was happening, Mr Fisher called Mr Decker a ‘woman abuser’ and a ‘piece of shit’. Mr Ballard and Mr Fisher told Mr Decker to get in the rear passenger seat; Mr Fisher sat next to him and Mr Ballard sat in the front seat. You then drove the car a short distance to the Bellarine Highway and into a side street. 
16	Mr Ballard got out of the car and opened Mr Decker’s door. He told Mr Decker to unlock his phone and show his banking profile; he told Mr Decker to transfer all of his money to you, and to give you his phone. 
17	Mr Decker did so, and you used Mr Decker’s banking application to transfer $750 into your bank account. 
18	While this was happening, Mr Ballard struck Mr Decker with the baton to the left side of his face approximately six times, telling him he was a ‘woman abuser’ and that he deserved what was happening to him.  
19	The prosecution position now is that by the time you transferred the money, you were aware of the presence of and use of the baton, and this gives rise to 
Charge 2, armed robbery. 
20	Mr Fisher told Mr Decker not to speak to you, or to contact the police; you gave Mr Decker his phone back and he got out of the car. 
21	When Mr Decker asked for his wallet back Mr Ballard told him he had thrown it away; Mr Decker then heard him tell you that you would keep the $200 and they would take the rest. You drove the car away, leaving Mr Decker behind. 
22	Mr Decker walked back to the Peninsula Hotel and told his colleagues what had happened to him.  You contacted Mr Decker a number of times that evening and in the early hours of 22 December 2020. You asked to meet him to ‘sort out’ what had happened, offers which Mr Decker declined. You also gave Mr Decker multiple versions of what had occurred, and provided him with the Instagram details for one of your co-accused, who you said had his money.
Investigation and Arrest 
23	Turning now to the investigation and arrest. Mr Decker made a statement to the police on 22 December 2020.
24	On 29 December 2020, police executed a search warrant at your home. You were arrested and taken to Geelong Police Station for an interview. Mr Ballard and 
Mr Fisher were also arrested the same day. A baton and Mr Decker’s ring and gold watch were retrieved from Mr Ballard’s possession. 
25	On 29 December 2020, you participated in a record of interview with police. You told the police the following: 
(a)	first, you were with Mr Ballard and Mr Fisher on 21 December 2020;  you had met Mr Ballard for the first time earlier that day; 
(b)	you told them Mr Decker owed you money from the house and the shoes that you bought him. You also told police that he had sexually assaulted you; 
(c)	Mr Ballard and Mr Fisher said they would help you to get your money back from Mr Decker, you said, but you told Mr Ballard and Mr Fisher that they did not need to hurt him, that they were just there to ‘scare him’;
(d)	you told police the plan was for Mr Ballard and Mr Fisher to only intervene if matters ‘got out of hand’, but that they intervened immediately;
(e)	you told police Mr Ballard and Mr Fisher shouted at Mr Decker, used a ‘long and silver’ object across his chest, and asked for his money, his watch, and took his phone and transferred you money, and went through his wallet; 
(f)	you said you drove a few hundred metres up the road, Mr Ballard slapped 
Mr Decker a few times and you dropped Mr Decker there; and 
(g)	finally, you told the police that you discussed the money with Mr Fisher while you were ‘low-key planning on giving it back’; you agreed that you would take $350 and they would keep the rest. You told police that you got cash out and gave them the money.    
Nature and gravity of the offending
26	Turning now to my assessment of the nature and gravity of your offending. Armed robbery is a profoundly serious offence, attracting a maximum penalty of 25 years’ imprisonment, which indicates how seriously this crime is to be regarded by the Courts. You committed this offence while in the company of two others. With your co-accused, you put Mr Decker in fear and this has had long lasting consequences for him. This is an objectively serious form of armed robbery. 
27	It was your grievance with Mr Decker which drove these events; you were the instigator of the meeting; you brought in the two other men.  After witnessing the behaviour of Mr Ballard and Mr Fisher, you acted to prolong the situation, taking 
Mr Decker further away by car and committing the armed robbery. 
28	You arranged for Mr Ballard and Mr Fisher to be present and to be ready to threaten or scare Mr Decker. Although you did not know about the weapon before the initial armed robbery conducted by your co-accused, you proceeded to conduct the second armed robbery in that context and with that knowledge. 
29	You lured Mr Decker into the car on a false pretence. What unfolded was at least partly the result of your planning. It was frightening and seriously cowardly behaviour. 
30	In relation to the common law assaults, they were committed by you at the end of a relationship and attract, as they must, the label of ‘family violence’. Whatever your other grievances were in that relationship, you had no right to physically assault Mr Decker. 
Procedural History
31	Turning to a brief procedural history of the case. During May and June 2023 I heard submissions on an application for a sentence indication on a plea to the same charges that are now before me. I return to the changes in the structure and content of the later plea shortly. I indicated then that I did not find, on the material then available to me, that any of the s 5(2H) exceptions had been enlivened such as to broaden my sentencing options. I indicated a maximum head sentence and you did not accept that indication but elected to take your case to trial as you had the right to do. 
32	As I said on the plea, that sentence indication does not now bind me, nor does it tether the sentencing calculus that I now perform.  
33	Your co-accused, Mr Ballard, pleaded guilty to charges of armed robbery and assault before me on 23 October 2023. He made a statement to police and gave an undertaking to give evidence against you. He received a 38 month Community Correction Order. Mr Fisher pleaded guilty after Mr Ballard made his statement. 
34	Mr Ballard was cross examined by you in a preliminary hearing shortly before your listed trial. 
35	You did not ultimately pursue a jury trial; you were arraigned and pleaded guilty on 8 July 2024 and the case returned to me for a plea on 18 October 2024. 
Victim impact statement
36	Turning now to the victim impact on this case. Mr Decker filed a victim impact statement and, unsurprisingly, the effects on him of what you did are serious and persistent. He has ongoing difficulties as a result of what you did. He suffers from depression and anxiety, difficulty with mood swings, and these things affect his daily life, including his ability to remain employed. I take the effect of what you did on Mr Decker into account.   
Prior criminal history
37	Turning to your very brief prior criminal history. You were dealt with, without conviction, for the offences of unlawful assault and threatening to destroy property in the Geelong Magistrates’ Court in 2019. Your mother was the victim of that offending; it is of little or no relevance to the sentencing task before me.
38	You have had no subsequent matters arising in the nearly four years since your commission of these offences. 
Personal Circumstances 
39	Turning now to your personal circumstances. You are 25 years old now and at the time of the offending you were 21. 
40	Your parents separated when you were about four years old, and you were primarily raised by your mother. You have a brother who is three years older than you. 
41	You grew up in Barwon Heads and went to Barwon Heads Primary School before transferring to Geelong College, where you remained until Year 8. 
42	You began to experience personal difficulties around this time, which manifested as behavioural problems. Unbeknownst to your family, you were being subjected to sexual abuse by your brother. 
43	Your family sent you to be a boarding student at Hamilton College. You did not return to the family home until your brother moved out. You then continued secondary school at Oberon College, though you left school after repeating 
Year 10. It was at that school that you finally found a social network of supportive friends. 
44	You were diagnosed with a learning difficulty, which was, according to your mother’s evidence on your plea, probably present, but your broader behavioural difficulties were likely sourced in what is now known about your treatment at your brother’s hands. 
45	Your brother has subsequently been imprisoned, I was told, for offending against others. 
46	You have used alcohol as a coping mechanism. You attempted to overdose on prescription medication when you were approximately 15. Whilst you have since been prescribed medication, you have ceased taking this due to other health concerns. 
47	After leaving school you worked in hospitality, before establishing your own commercial and domestic cleaning business. This was in 
July 2022. Your business thrived and did well, and you were able to employ two cleaners as a result of its success. 
48	Your close friend, who you had known since Oberon College, passed away in a tragic head-on collision in February 2020; this event had a profound impact on you.  
Plea of guilty
49	Turning now to your pleas of guilty. Your case resolved during the circuit in which it was listed for trial; it is at first blush a late plea, coming, as it does, over a year after the sentencing indication process commenced.
50	That said, the timing of your plea takes on a different complexion when it is understood that the factual settlement is on a different basis to that which you were earlier presented on. 
51	It was only after Mr Ballard became a witness, and your cross examination of him at a preliminary hearing, that the settlement now before me was acceptable to the prosecution.  In those circumstances, I do not treat your plea as a ‘late’ one. 
52	Your plea prevented the complainant from having to give evidence at trial and I take your plea, and the circumstances surrounding its timing, into account in mitigation of your sentence and this is a very important feature of your sentence. 
Psychological evidence
53	Turning now to psychological evidence on your plea. Your counsel relied on two reports authored by Mr Jeffrey Cummins and one authored by Carla Lechner as evidence which engages limbs 2, 5 and 6 in the case of Verdins.
54	Briefly, you suffer from a complex PTSD sourced in early childhood trauma, and particularly in the abuse that you endured at your brother’s hands. It was uncontroversial on your plea that this condition would increase the hardship of your imprisonment, and justifies a less severe sentence as there is a serious risk that your imprisonment could have a significant adverse effect on your mental health. It was not submitted that the condition should alter the form of your sentence; it was not submitted that any other form of sentence other than imprisonment was open to me, however I take this condition into account in the reduction of the sentence that I will impose.  
55	Although not strictly psychological evidence, I do take into account, by way of background to your sentence, that you were made vulnerable as a young person by your difficult family circumstances, that this led you to seek comfort in relationships that were unhealthy for you, and that the relationship with Mr Decker was one of those. This is not accepted by way of excuse, but it is context. You were also labouring under the grief of the loss of your close friend. 
Delay
56	I address now the subject of delay in this sentence. Four years have elapsed since your offending. You have lived under the shadow of this case during all this time, which I accept has a punitive aspect and which mitigates your sentence. 
57	Also, you have used this time well: you have not reoffended; you started your own business; and, importantly, established a very lengthy and consistent relationship with a counsellor. You have been able to address some of the problems that led you to seek out and remain in unsatisfactory relationships. These things have led to the renewal of your family relationships and all the good that flows from that. You now have a supportive partner, who came to the plea hearing. 
Pregnancy
58	You are now expecting your first child, due in late February 2025. You have been approved for the ‘Living with Mum’ program which will allow you to keep your baby with you in custody after you give birth. 
59	You will carry your baby to term in the prison environment, without the immediate support of your partner or mother. Your pregnancy makes you more vulnerable; you have the safety of your unborn child, as well as that of yourself, to protect during this time. Your pregnancy is considered ‘high risk’ and will require more regular monitoring on that account. I note that the prison authorities have been notified of this fact and are prepared. You will be a very new, and first-time mother without the immediate support of your partner and family, in the harsh custodial environment. These features of your imprisonment will increase the burden upon you and I mitigate your sentence appropriately. 
Youth 
60	You were 21 at the time of your commission of these offences and you are 25 now. You are a youthful offender and your ongoing rehabilitation must and will take on a central position in this sentence. 
Rehabilitation
61	Turning now to the rehabilitation gains that you made during your time on bail. You relied on a range of character references authored by your partner, your mother, father, friends, and others. Many people have expressed their support and affection for you, and spoke of the gains you have made personally during the last four years.  
62	You have consistently acted to advance your rehabilitation during this time. The improvement in your family relationships, as spoken about by your mother in her evidence on the plea, is just one of the rewards for your effort. The two letters from Ms Stephanie Thorpe, counsellor, attest to the excellent progress you have made in your psychological recovery under her care. Your attendance for counselling has been enduring and impressive. 
63	Your mother gave evidence on your plea and this assisted me to gain a better understanding of the complex family circumstances you emerged from, and to understand that you now have a fully informed and enduring affection of your family behind you. I note that your father also attended Court. 
64	Taking all these matters into account, I find your prospects for rehabilitation are very, very good. 
Category 2 offence
65	Noting finally that your offence was committed in company and as such attracts the serious offender provisions. No argument was advanced that any exception to the operation of those provisions was available. You must be sentenced to a term of imprisonment and a ‘combination’ sentence is not open to me.  
Parity
66	Turning now to parity. Achieving parity in sentencing is particularly difficult in this case. 
67	I sentenced Mr Ballard, aged 21 at the time of the offending, to a lengthy Community Corrections Order. He brought the weapon, and was sentenced to the ‘original’ armed robbery, which is not included in the ambit of your offending. He used the weapon. He pleaded guilty much earlier, made a statement and gave an undertaking to give evidence. He brought strong evidence of rehabilitation to his plea and had no prior convictions. 
68	Mr Fisher, aged 20 at the time of your offending, had a lesser role to that of Mr Ballard, but like him pleaded guilty to the ‘ongoing’ armed robbery from start to finish. He had no relevant prior convictions. He was sentenced to seven months’ imprisonment. He did not cross examine Mr Ballard, but pleaded guilty after 
Mr Ballard made his statement. 
69	Although you pleaded guilty to only the second chapter on the facts giving rise to the armed robbery, you were the instigator of this doomed arrangement. It was your dispute with Mr Decker, you called in Mr Ballard and Mr Fisher. After you became aware of the weapon, you drove Mr Decker to the second location and stole money from him. You pleaded guilty much later, and you cross-examined Mr Ballard but that cross-examination established your initial lack of knowledge of the weapon and created the factual basis for the current settlement. You must also be sentenced for the assaults of Mr Decker before the day of the armed robbery. Of course neither Mr Decker nor Mr Ballard will ever know what it is like to be pregnant and give birth to and care for a child in custody. 
70	I do my best, in this complex factual and legal matrix, to sentence in a way that is fair as between you. 
Current sentencing practice
71	I have had regard to a range of sentences for armed robbery before fixing your sentence.  None of those sentences are particularly like yours but I sentence you in that landscape. 
Purposes and structure  of sentence
72	This sentence must deter others from committing armed robbery; it must be punitive, and serve to denounce what you did publicly. It is completely unacceptable to put someone in fear in order to extract what you feel you are owed; for whatever reason. 
73	I regard the role for specific deterrence to be very slight, if anything. The role for community protection from you, given the achievements you have made since this offending, is similarly slight. 
74	There is no sentence legally open to me other than a term of imprisonment. I have considered whether a sentence which incorporates conditional freedom on parole, and a sentence without that feature. Given what has transpired over the last four years, and your sustained attention to your rehabilitation during that time, I am going to impose a sentence that has a certain end date, and does not include a non-parole period. 
Consideration
75	In this case, I attempt to strike the right balance between supporting the rehabilitation of a youthful offender who is vulnerable in custody against the need to give proper weight to the need for general deterrence and punishment for a very serious offence, and the following is the disposition that I have arrived at. 
Disposition
76	The common assault charge represents distinct offending against Mr Decker; and there will be a degree of modest cumulation on the armed robbery sentence as a result. 
77	On Charge 1, common law assault, you are convicted and sentenced to two months’ imprisonment. 
78	On Charge 2, armed robbery, you are convicted and sentenced to 9 months’ imprisonment. 
79	I order that one month of the sentence on Charge 1 be served cumulatively on the sentence on Charge 2, resulting in a total effective sentence of 10 months’ imprisonment. 
Ancillary Orders
80	Turning now to the ancillary orders.  The prosecution sought forfeiture of your mobile phone used in the offending.  This was opposed by you on the basis that it may have in its storage, photos of a friend you lost to a car accident. No satisfactory arrangement could be made, it was said, to allow for the transfer of those images before the phone was formally forfeited. 
81	The phone was used by you to message Mr Decker to lure him into your car. It is ‘tainted’ property for the purposes of the Confiscation Act 1997. I have considered, pursuant to s 33(5)(b) of the Confiscation Act whether to order forfeiture would cause ‘undue hardship’. 
82	I do not conclude that the possible loss of photographs (about which I note there was no evidence before me) would be unacceptably disproportionate in the context of the commission of the offence of armed robbery. I do not conclude that ‘undue hardship’ is the result of the forfeiture of the phone, and I will make that order. 
83	The prosecution also applied for an order for compensation pursuant to s 86 of the Sentencing Act in the amount of the $750.00 stolen from Mr Decker. This application was also opposed, on the basis that you, Ms Combs, obtained the $750.00 and then divided the stolen money between you and your co-accused; according to you in your record of interview. The prosecution maintained that you are jointly and severally liable for Mr Decker’s loss.
84	I will do the best I can to balance the arguments about this application and I will make an order for compensation in the amount of $350 in favour of Mr Decker. I note that there was no similar application made in the cases of Mr Ballard and Mr Fisher. 
Final
85	I now remand Ms Combs in custody to commence sentence; there is no pre-sentence detention.  
Section 6AAA
86	Finally, had you not pleaded guilty, Ms Combs, but been found guilty after trial, I would have imposed a maximum head sentence of three years with a non-parole period of 22 months. 
87	Ms Combs, that completes the sentence.  I am now going to remand you in custody for you to commence the sentence this day.  I thank counsel for their assistance and I thank the family members for their attendance at court.  It's greatly appreciated.
88	MR McGLONE:  As Your Honour pleases.
89	MS PAGANIS:  As Your Honour pleases.
90	HER HONOUR:  Will you have the capacity to attend on Ms Combs downstairs?
91	MR McGLONE:  Yes, no problem.
92	HER HONOUR:  Good.  Apart from the pregnancy are there any other custody management issues that should be noted in the orders?
93	MR McGLONE:  Look, yes, Your Honour, first time in custody.
94	HER HONOUR:  Yes.
95	MR McGLONE:  And given her health issues as well, in addition to the pregnancy, we'd ask that to be marked and the like.
96	HER HONOUR:  Would you just say that last remark again?
97	MR McGLONE:  So, firstly, her first time in custody.
98	HER HONOUR:  Yes.
99	MR McGLONE:  You've noted the pregnancy.
100	HER HONOUR:  Yes.
101	MR McGLONE:  But also her health issues.
102	HER HONOUR:  Yes.
103	MR McGLONE:  Which I should identify, Your Honour, in terms of her health condition and the medication that she receives for it.
104	HER HONOUR:  All right.  Well, we'll make those orders.
105	MR McGLONE:  Thank you, Your Honour.
106	HER HONOUR:  Thank you.  Thank you, counsel.
107	MS PAGANIS:  As Your Honour pleases.
- - -