STATE OF TASMANIA v SIMONE HELEN BARRATT 26 SEPTEMBER 2019
COMMENTS ON PASSING SENTENCE PORTER AJ
The defendant, Ms Barratt, has pleaded guilty to one count of attempting to commit armed robbery. The crime was committed at about 2am on 15 November 2018. Shortly before that, the defendant left her home in Glenorchy and walked about 300 metres to a nearby intersection. She had a 30 cm long kitchen knife hidden in the left pocket of her pants, and a pair of scissors in the right pocket. At the intersection she called a taxi, telling the operator that her name was Catherine, and that she wanted to be picked up from a particular number in one of the intersecting streets. She provided a phone number. A taxi, driven by Baljinder Marrad, was despatched. He could not find the address given, but saw the defendant standing at the intersection. When the defendant got in she asked to be taken to a street not far away but did not provide a number. When Mr Marrad stopped the taxi and told her the fare of $7.30, the defendant produced the knife and said “give me your wallet”. Mr Marrad saw the knife and believed he would be hurt if he did not hand over his wallet. He said he would do so but after picking up his wallet which was in the driver’s door, he opened the door and ran away. He left behind his phone, coin dispenser and GPS navigator. He also left the taxi running. He flagged down another taxi and was taken a nearby police station. The defendant remained in the taxi for a short time before getting out and running off. In the meantime Mr Marrad and the other driver went to Mr Marrad’s taxi. All the doors were closed and the engine was still running. None of his property had been taken. Police inquiries led to the defendant. When spoken to on 27 November she denied any knowledge of the incident and said she had lent her phone to a friend about that time. Further investigation confirmed the defendant’s identity. On 29 November the defendant was again interviewed. In essence, she admitted her conduct. She was charged and bailed. I note that the bail contained a curfew condition which she has complied with since. The complainant has declined to make a victim impact statement, but the incident was no doubt traumatic for him.
The defendant is now 38 years old. She has no recorded history of offending of any significance; the only matter is driving without a licence in February 2009. I have a comprehensive psychiatric report from Dr Jordan dated 24 September 2019. I also have a pre-sentence report which addresses home detention, community service and supervision. It emerges that the defendant’s early childhood through to her late teens was unstable and abusive. She did not know her father and has not seen or spoken to her mother for 20 years. Her mother was taking drugs and was physically violent towards the children. She had many partners, resulting in the family moving house numerous times. The defendant was introduced to drugs at an early age. She is a single mother of four children aged 20, 14, 10 and 9. The father of the children is an alcoholic and drug user. The two separated in 2007, although the man continued to stay at the house from time to time. The defendant reported that he had been the cause of most of her stress. He is penniless due to his drug habit and would often demand and take money from her and generally cause havoc. The defendant last worked in 2006 when she worked in the hospitality industry for some six months. Her parenting duties required her to stay at home to adequately care for the children. The defendant has a history of heavy drinking and using various drugs over a period of time. However, about 18 months ago she was able to stop all illicit drug consumption and has also considerably reduced her alcohol consumption. She has been diagnosed with borderline personality disorder and post-traumatic stress disorder, and is receiving ongoing counselling from a psychologist. Shortly before this offending she was going through a particularly stressful period due to issues with her ex-partner. She changed her medication. That caused her problems with insomnia and impulsivity. The defendant reports that all of this resulted in her having irrational thoughts and a lack of awareness. I am told that the ex-partner was harassing her to help him pay his drug debts. He twice visited on the night; on the second occasion he was affected by drugs. He wanted her to negotiate with the drug dealer on his behalf. She had been drinking, and agreed to do so, immediately motivated by the desire to be rid of him. She took the knife and scissors to protect herself. However, I note she told police that she took those things as she wanted to be locked up, so she could get away from the stresses at home. At the same time, she told police that she gave a false name and address so she would not be caught. There are things that suggest some pre-planning of the crime, but I am told that the defendant has a poor recollection of the events. This is borne out by the psychiatric report. I am told that during the police interview she was attempting to explain and rationalise for herself, if no one else, what she had done. All in all I am satisfied that, generally at the relevant time, she was in a most disorganised state, and I am not satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that the offence was pre-planned in any real sense.
Returning to the narrative, after she got in the taxi, the next thing she remembers is sitting in the taxi pointing the knife at the driver. Seeing the terror in his eyes made her come to her senses. She told the probation officer that she is sorry for her actions and hopes the driver has not suffered too much ongoing stress. She penned a letter expressing remorse but this has not been sent. Dr Jordan has confirmed the diagnosis of borderline personality disorder. He says that the symptoms of the disorder often include impulse and self-destructive behaviours, extreme emotional swings and a strong fear of abandonment. He seems also to support the diagnosis of post-traumatic stress disorder arising from emotional and physical abuse from her ex-partner over an extended period. That ex-partner was manipulative and controlling. He has, in the past stabbed her, broken one of her fingers and slapped or strangled her intermittently. Dr Jordan says that both these conditions can bring about a degree of mental impairment, and when under stress or extraneous pressure, individuals with these diagnoses or a combination, can react impulsively and with a reduced understanding of potential consequences. That is particularly the case with borderline personality disorder. In Dr Jordan’s opinion, it would appear that impaired mental functioning led her to act in a rash and ill-considered fashion. When the gravity of her actions became apparent to her, she panicked and fled. In Dr Jordan’s opinion, the situation may have been exacerbated by the recent change in medication. I am satisfied that there was an operative mental impairment at the time, and that it contributed to the defendant’s actions, although it is not possible to quantify the extent. In terms of specific deterrence, Dr Joran says that her self-report and lack of criminal convictions did not suggest that she is an individual with pervasive antisocial traits, and he says there is a case for the moderation of specific deterrence as a factor. The treating psychologist has confirmed these diagnoses. The defendant has been seeing him for over five years in total, and he says the defendant has engaged well since the time of offending. I take into account the plea of guilty, and I also take into account that there is evidence of genuine remorse and insight. The defendant has been assessed as suitable for a home detention order and supervision, but not for community service. I note that the defendant is now protected from the ex-partner by way of a family violence order in much more comprehensive terms than was previously the case.
Ms Barratt, this was an attempted crime, but there is no general rule that says attempts are always to be treated as less serious than the completed crime. Often, as in this case, the only thing that makes the crime of armed robbery an attempt to commit it, is the failure to take something. The harm is done in the course of the attempt. Armed robberies of taxi drivers are unfortunately not uncommon, and are a matter of concern. They are serious crimes and traumatic to the victim. You initially denied your involvement, a matter that I do not overlook. But having said all of that, I am satisfied that because of the unusual background to the offending and your good record and personal circumstances at the time, including of course, your mental health issues, an individualised approach is justified. Rehabilitation, in my view, is a prominent factor. I do not think that the punitive and incapacitating aspects of a home detention order are necessary. The gravity of the crime can be marked by a term of imprisonment but, coupled with a community corrections order, the whole of the term can properly be suspended. Of course, you are at real risk of serving the term if the statutory condition is breached. You are convicted and sentenced to 10 months imprisonment, the execution of the whole of which is suspended on condition that you commit no offence punishable by imprisonment for 18 months. In addition, I make a community corrections order for 12 months. You will have to report a probation officer at 114 Bathurst Street, Hobart by 5pm on 30 September 2019. Special conditions are that you submit to the supervision of a probation officer as required, and you must submit to medical, psychological or psychiatric assessment or treatment as directed by a probation officer.