STATE OF TASMANIA v EMMA-LISA ERONEN 25 SEPTEMBER 2026
COMMENTS ON PASSING SENTENCE ESTCOURT J
The defendant, Emma-Lisa Eronen, born on 27 December 1987, has pleaded guilty to two counts of assault, contrary to section 184 of the Criminal Code 1924, and one count of Wounding, contrary to section 172 of the Criminal Code 1924.
Also on complaint 9724/2024, is one charge of assault a police officer and one charge of resist a police officer, contrary to section 34(B) (1)(a)(i) of the Police Offences Act, 1935. An application pursuant to section 385A of the Criminal Code was made in relation to those charges and I accepted pleas of guilty through counsel.
The complainant is [name redacted], who was born on 7 December 1972. The complainant had known the defendant since 2012 as she lived on the same street.
At 9.30am on Tuesday, 10 September 2024, the defendant walked to the complainant’s house. After arriving, the complainant offered to give the defendant money and buy her some groceries. The complainant booked a taxi to the IGA in South Hobart. The complainant and the defendant got into the taxi at about 10.00am and once at the IGA, the complainant purchased groceries for the defendant. They then travelled to the Cascade Hotel and the complainant purchased a bottle of Canadian Club Whisky. They caught a taxi back to the complainant’s house and started drinking the alcohol together. After some time, the defendant suggested that they go to her house and they both walked there, which was only a couple of minutes away from the complainant’s house. When they arrived at the defendant’s house, they continued to drink alcohol together. At some stage, the complainant got up to leave and walked down the external stairs of the building.
The complainant told the defendant to start taking care of her family. The defendant became upset and pushed the complainant down the external stairs that led to the front door. The complainant fell forwards and hit her head on the concrete. The defendant grabbed the complainant and pulled her to the ground. The defendant got on top of the complainant while she was on the ground. The complainant’s head was pressed against the ground by the defendant’s head. The defendant bit the complainant’s left ear. The complainant described this as extremely painful and repeatedly screamed “stop.” The defendant held the complainant’s ear with her teeth.
At the time, a resident from [address redacted], Ms Van Limbeek, heard yelling and ran over to the complainant’s address.
The defendant ripped the complainant’s hair and slammed the complainant’s head on the concrete. The complainant screamed for help. The defendant kicked the complainant twice to the left rib and once to the left side of the head and punched her to her head. The complainant felt blood trickle down her face. Ms Van Limbeek walked up to the defendant and repeatedly told her to stop. She described the defendant’s behaviour as “erratic” and said the defendant was screaming and yelling.
Members of Tasmania Police attended the address at about ten past four in the afternoon. They spoke to Ms Van Limbeek. She told police that the defendant had assaulted the complainant and that the complainant had returned to her own address.
An ambulance was called and the complainant was taken to the Royal Hobart Hospital. She was seen in the Emergency Department and diagnosed with the following:
- A closed, undisplaced transverse fracture of the left distal fibula (left ankle fracture);
- A subconjunctival haemorrhage of the left eye;
- Small abrasions to her arms and hands; and
- A left ear wound with extensive cartilage damage, extensive bite wounds to the posterior pinna and flap laceration on helical rim.
The complainant underwent an operation, namely a washout and repair of the left ear bite and was prescribed pain relief and anti-biotics.
Police observed the defendant sitting on a chair on the driveway of the address. She was wearing very little clothing. Police did not observe any significant injuries on her.
The defendant was arrested and made the following admissions after being cautioned by police:
“so physically me and her got into a punch on like to the point where it led from basically about that concrete line there to there.”
“Literally like she’s ripped my hair, I’ve ripped her hair. We got to a full punch on, I mean like she’s twice as big as me mate. She’s three times as big as me. And I have no choice. I have no choice, but like I have no weapon. What am I supposed to do against someone that big like wrestling out in the driveway? I had no choice but to literally like latch on to her ear. And I did that out of like, because she grabbed my hand, pushed my head into the concrete to the point where it was like these guys were out here watching. I’m like oh my god I’m about to die because she’s a schizophrenic freak who can’t go a day without a drink.”
The defendant was taken to the Hobart Police Station. The defendant was highly aggressive. Whilst being transferred to the Hobart Reception Prison, she resisted police by thrashing her body, kicking her legs, refusing to walk by lifting her legs off the ground so that police had to carry her weight, whilst gripping Senior Constable Swift’s arm tightly.
Once at the Hobart Police station, Senior Constable Swift assisted in removing the defendant from the divisional van. Whilst attempting to get the defendant to sit on a chair in the caged area of the police station, the defendant kicked her twice to her knee. Senior Constable Swift grabbed hold of her arms and the defendant grabbed her arm tightly and dug her fingernails into her wrist. This caused visible red marks to Constable Swift’s arm.
The defendant was interviewed by police on 11 September 2024 and stated the following:
- “I fucked up. I bashed someone didn’t I because I was fucking drunk again. And I’ve done it before, its already on police record. The cops know all about it. It’s the same thing again, I’ve just lost my shit because I was drunk.
- She was pissed off because she had no dope or medication.
- The complainant ended up at her house.
- She said “I don’t even know why I fucking attacked the cunt, cause she mouths off all the time. I don’t know. I don’t know.”
- The complainant had obviously said something to piss her off.
- She said “no but probably” when she was asked if she recalled slamming the complainant’s head against the concrete. She could not recall biting her ear.
- When she was asked what her intentions were, she said she was paralytic drunk and she did not know, other than she obviously pissed her off.
- She agreed she kicked the police officer and dug her nails into her wrists but could not remember doing this.
I am told by her counsel that the defendant is a damaged and vulnerable person with a complicated background. Presently 38 years of age, her short life has been marred by traumas in the form of abuse, neglect and violence. There is a long history of depression dating back to her first referral to Child and Adolescent Mental Health Services at nine years of age. Her childhood was dysfunctional, with both parents alcoholics and her mother diagnosed with schizophrenia. She was exposed to alcohol use and domestic violence at an early age. Her formative years were affected by regular admissions to emergency foster, care disrupting crucial attachment formation to her mother. She spent an estimated six to seven years in foster care, characterised by uncertainty as to when and if she would ever see her mother.
Her education was haphazard and incomplete, due largely to being disrupted by her foster placements. She attended six different schools up to Grade 7, at which point she left school. At 13 years of age, she made attempts to live independently after being returned to her mother’s care when it was evident that her mother was significantly mentally unwell.
I am told that her vulnerability appears to have no bounds. She was a victim of physical and sexual abuse from her later teen years into adulthood. She gave birth to her first child at 14 years of age. The baby was taken into care. The defendant has suffered sexual trauma in the form of abuse and rapes, both when under the age of consent and beyond. Her second child was born when she was 17 years of age. In almost all romantic relationships, the defendant has been a victim of violence, both physical and sexual. As an adult, sexual trauma is evident in the form of rape within relationships. One male was sentenced to imprisonment for sexual assault perpetrated against the defendant in which he had physically restrained her with binds before assaulting her. On another occasion, she was stabbed by her male partner and required emergency surgery. For a considerable period, the defendant kept a knife nearby her or on her as a precautionary measure, in case she was required to defend herself.
The defendant’s counsel submits that a history of drug and alcohol use as a means of self-medication is not surprising when considered against the backdrop of her circumstances. Of note, I am told, her usage has significantly decreased in recent times. She has not drunk alcohol to excess for an extensive period. She had abstained from drugs, using only cannabis intermittently, but reports that she now no longer smokes it. The defendant is now receiving medication for depression.
I am informed that despite her interrupted education, she has pursued vocational courses and further studies at TAFE with a view to obtaining employment in hospitality. She obtained a Certificate 1 in general education and commenced a Certificate 2 in career preparation.
She has resided alone in accommodation, provided by Housing Tasmania, for over a decade. That accommodation has been unsuitable for a number of years now, particularly given conflict with neighbours with significant alcohol and drug problems. However, Housing Tasmania has not managed to provide her with alternate accommodation.
The defendant injured her head when her bicycle ran into a van last year. This has resulted in headaches, giddiness and poorer memory. She is to receive medical review at the hospital regarding effects of concussion or a potential brain injury. Ongoing injuries have reduced the type of work she can obtain. A position replenishing stock in supermarkets was unavailable to her due to her back injury.
As to the offending, the defendant reported drinking with the complainant and being intoxicated. She recalled speaking with her daughter on the phone and becoming either irritated or agitated with the complainant. A comment made by the complainant about how she ought to look after her family was made, but what occurred next is not well remembered by her. A witness noted that her behaviour was “erratic”. The defendant acknowledged that she had, in her words, “fucked up”. On more than one occasion, she explained that the complainant must have said something to either agitate her or to “trigger it”.
The defendant has a 2021 conviction for committing an act intended to cause bodily harm. Dr Michael Jordan, forensic psychiatrist, provided a report outlining that she had responded disproportionately to a complainant’s comments of a sexual nature at that time and had refused to leave her home. It was his opinion that Ms Eronen’s various psychiatric symptoms were characterised by complex Post Traumatic Stress Disorder.
Being aware of the circumstances surrounding her 2021 sentence, a further report was sought from Dr Jordan by her counsel. That report is dated 30 October 2025, and I have read and considered it and an addendum to it. In them, Dr Jordan outlines psychiatric factors relevant to defendant, and the connection between her mental health condition and her offending behaviour.
Dr Jordan originally acknowledged that the extent of the dissociative experience may be made more difficult by the accompanying level of intoxication on the day. He reasoned that the defendant’s emotional and cognitive response to the complainant’s comments was more pronounced than any contributing factor that intoxication may have played. He opined that the comment made by the complainant resulted in the defendant reacting in accordance with the destabilisation of her emotional and physical state, brought about by a dissociative state as a direct result of her complex PTSD. After this causal connection was questioned by counsel for the State, Dr Jordan viewed the police body worn camera footage of the defendant sitting alone in a chair outside her house after the incident. This caused him to feel more strongly that the cause of the offending was a dissociative state and not her intoxication, although he accepted that it was hard to be precise and that there is some overlap between the two, and her not taking her medication and smoking cannabis could have played a role as well.
Having watched the footage I have a little difficulty in accepting that opinion but I lack the relevant expertise and I have no contrary opinion, and I am inclined to accept what Dr Jordan says in those circumstances, and I take that into account for what it is worth. I do not accept, however, that a single causal connection has been established between her offending and her mental state, or if it were, that it is a case for moderating sentence.
On any view of things, it would in my view be counterproductive and not in the interests of the wider community to return the defendant to prison. As her counsel submits, her background of deprivation and trauma is a relevant factor in determining an appropriate sentence, as confirmed by the High Court in Bugmy v The Queen (2013) 249 CLR 571, and the effects of a background of significant deprivation do not diminish over time and are to be given full weight in sentencing. I note the defendant has already spent 44 days in custody referable to this offending.
The complainant is not overlooked by an The defendant has not had the benefit of psychological therapy in her adult years to allow her to process events and traumas. Of significance, Dr Jordan noted she had some “developing insight into her broader health circumstances”, and it is his recommendation that she receive therapy. He has clarified that she requires an experienced practitioner and that dialectical behaviour therapy is required. That is essentially a form of psychotherapy involving cognitive behavioural therapy and mindfulness practices to treat intense emotional dysregulation and self-harm.
The complainant is not overlooked by an individualised approach to sentencing in this case, although home detention or community service would have been potential sentencing options save for a pre-sentence report that advised me that she was considered unsuitable for those alternatives.
I have read a victim impact statement from the complainant and I note that prior to this offending, she lived independently and confidently, maintained a normal social life, and felt safe moving freely within my community. Since the attack, her behaviour, thoughts, and ability to cope have changed significantly. She is now constantly on edge, hyper-aware of her surroundings, and preoccupied with fear for her safety. She avoids situations and places that she once had no concern about, and her confidence and sense of independence have been severely diminished.
Moreover, due to the physical injuries and ongoing psychological effects she sustained, she informs me that she has found herself unable to work and is currently reliant on Commonwealth benefits. She has also incurred expenses related to medical treatment, rehabilitation, and psychological care, and at times she has been unable to afford the treatment that she requires for her recovery. All of this has caused her ongoing stress and anxiety.
The defendant is convicted of each of the crimes and offences to which she has pleaded guilty. I impose a single sentence of 15 months’ imprisonment, backdated to Wednesday, 12 August 2026 with the balance suspended from today for a period of two years on condition that during that period the defendant commit no offence punishable by imprisonment.
I also make a community corrections order for two years from today. The core conditions of that order will be specified in the order and include that the defendant not commit an offence punishable by imprisonment, that she report to and comply with the directions of a probation officer, that she must not leave Tasmania without permission, and that she must notify any change of address. I impose special conditions that she must, during the operational period of the order, submit to the supervision of a probation officer as required by the probation officer, attend and participate in and complete educational and other programs, undergo assessment and treatment for alcohol or drug dependency, submit to testing for alcohol or drug use, and submit to medical, psychological or psychiatric assessment or treatment as directed by a probation officer.