STATE OF TASMANIA v INR 17 DECEMBER 2025
COMMENTS ON PASSING SENTENCE JAGO J
The defendant was a youth, aged 17, when these crimes occurred. I will therefore refer to him as “I” throughout these comments. I has pleaded guilty, on two separate complaints, to some serious offences of violence, which occurred on 9 April 2023. On complaint 51287/23, the defendant pleaded guilty to the crime of wounding with intent to maim, contrary to s 170(1)(a) of the Criminal Code, and on complaint 51173/23, he pleaded guilty to two counts of threaten a police officer.
The complaints came before Magistrate L Topfer in the Youth Justice Division of the Magistrates Court. Her Honour heard facts and a plea in mitigation and in the course of the proceedings received a body of information, primarily a number of psychiatric and psychological reports, pertaining to the defendant’s mental health and a personality disorder. As a result of that material, her Honour formed the view that a restriction order or a supervision order may be necessary, and on 27 March 2025, committed the defendant to the Supreme Court for determination of that issue, pursuant to s 75(3) of the Sentencing Act. A restriction order or supervision order can only be made by the Supreme Court. Pursuant to s 75(4) of the Act, on a referral of a matter to the Supreme Court, this Court must enquire into the circumstances of the case, and it has the same powers to deal with the offender as if the offender had been dealt with in that court. All of the material that was before Magistrate Topfer came before this Court. I note that in addition to the complaints I have already mentioned, 3 other summary complaints were also referred to this Court: complaint 50942/22 involving 2 counts of common assault and a count of attempting to escape, and complaints 51534/22 and 51535/22 which were applications for contravention of a supervised release order. [I] had pleaded guilty and elected to not show cause in respect to those matters.
A review of that material shows the facts of the matter to be as follows. The complainant is Dr Wong. At the time of the crime, he was employed as a locum doctor at the Northwest Regional Hospital. On the afternoon of 9 April 2023, Ambulance Tasmania were called to the defendant’s residence. He complained of headaches and neck pain and suggested he had hit his head a few days earlier. The defendant was transported to the Northwest Regional Hospital emergency department. The attendance at the Northwest Regional Hospital was the defendant’s third presentation in a five-day period. Each time he had complained of a headache as a result of a fall.
The defendant was sent for a CT scan. Because of an oversight, the CT scan was conducted of the defendant’s head, but not his neck. A Mr Bell, a nurse within the emergency department, spoke with the defendant and explained that the CT scan had not covered his neck, thus he needed to return to radiology. The defendant refused to do so and demanded to know the results of the initial head scan before undergoing any further scans.
Nurse Bell informed Dr Wong of the difficulties. Dr Wong reviewed the results of the initial head scan. They showed nothing of concern. Nurse Bell conveyed this to the defendant and reiterated to him that he needed to undergo a further neck scan. The defendant continued to refuse.
Shortly after, Dr Wong spoke to the defendant and encouraged him to have the CT scan of the neck. The defendant agreed to do so. Dr Wong departed to organise the scan. Shortly after, however, Nurse Bell again advised Dr Wong that the defendant was being difficult. Dr Wong advised the defendant that he would not be forced to have the scan, and he could leave if he wished to do so.
The defendant then started telling Dr Wong that something was broken outside of the hospital. Dr Wong was not certain what the defendant was endeavouring to convey, so in order to deal with his concerns quickly, Dr Wong asked the defendant to show him what was broken outside. He followed the defendant out of the emergency department. As the defendant and Dr Wong were standing outside the emergency department, the defendant lunged towards Dr Wong and stabbed him once in the chest area. Dr Wong felt immediate pain to his chest and staggered backwards. The defendant ran away.
Dr Wong returned inside the waiting room and called out that he had been stabbed. He was assisted to a resuscitation room by nurses. Dr Wong required immediate incubation as he had suffered a pericardial effusion, which resulted in excessive blood between the heart and the heart sac, thereby placing pressure on the heart and impeding its capacity to pump. Dr Wong was airlifted to the Royal Hobart Hospital, in a critical condition, for emergency surgery. He suffered an approximate one-centimetre stab wound to his right ventricle, which penetrated through the heart wall and into the heart chamber. Open heart surgery was required to repair the damage.
Dr Wong spent four days in ICU before being admitted to a ward. He then remained on the ward for approximately nine days before discharge.
The incident was reported to police. The defendant was located in the area of Burnie Park. Two police officers, Constable de Batista and Constable McVeity, attempted to engage the defendant, but he refused to stop and speak with them. Police followed the defendant into a nearby cul-de-sac. Whilst Constable de Batista was trying to speak with the defendant, he drew a knife from his pocket and held it in his right hand. Constable de Batista shouted at him to put the knife down, but he refused to comply. Two other police officers arrived at the scene. They observed the defendant in a fighting stance, with the knife held in his right hand. One of those officers, Constable Lloyd, had her police issued OC spray held in the direction of the defendant. Whilst holding the knife, he lunged towards Constable Lloyd and said, “I’ll launch at you cunt.” His behaviour towards the two police officers constitutes the two counts of threaten a police officer.
OC spray was ultimately deployed. It was initially ineffective, and the defendant ran from the scene. He was located in a backyard a short time later, with the knife still in his hand. He was taken into custody by several police officers. When the defendant was charged and processed, two knives were located amongst his property. One knife was approximately 21.5 centimetres long, with a blade length of 9.5 centimetres. There was obvious blood-like staining on the blade of that knife. The second knife did not appear to have been used.
The learned magistrate received a victim impact statement from Dr Wong. That has been provided to this Court. As one would expect, Dr Wong has been terribly impacted by this crime. The injury he suffered was life threatening. The surgery he had to endure was lengthy, risky and complicated. To perform the open-heart surgery, his breastbone and rib cage had to be sawn open. Nine months after the surgery, it had still not fully healed. Wires were being utilised to hold his breastbone together. It was a painful experience. He has been left badly scarred, which serves as a constant reminder of the trauma he endured.
Dr Wong has been left with residual physical impairment, which impacts his quality of life generally. He continues to experience ongoing chronic pain. He has also suffered psychologically. He continues to experience nightmares and flashbacks. He is always anxious and suffers panic attacks He no longer trusts people and is fearful of being alone. To date, he has been unable to return to work and does not know if he will ever be able to return to work as a doctor – a career that he had worked incredibly hard to attain, and which he thoroughly enjoyed. He has also lost his earning capacity, which has impacted both him and his family financially. He is constantly worried about his family’s future and feels guilty watching his family suffer significant psychological effects because of this incident. Dr Wong now describes himself as “just going through the motions of life… the person I was before has gone”. Undoubtedly, Dr Wong’s life has been terribly impacted by this crime.
The medical reports which were before the Magistrate and are before this Court include: four reports from Dr Atherton, a forensic psychiatrist employed at the Forensic Mental Health Service and dated 24 January 2024, 19 March 2024, 27 June 2024, and a very lengthy and comprehensive report dated 13 March 2025. Additionally, there is a forensic psychological report, dated 5 February 2023, authored by Sam Van der Wijngaart. I have also received a Youth Justice pre-sentence report dated 21 March 2024. I have had regard to all that material.
In summary, the reports indicate a very complex and troubled young man. I is the youngest of four children. He grew up in a family where there were frequent and serious allegations of sexual, emotional and physical abuse and neglect. I and his three siblings were removed from their parents care into Child Safety care in 2006 when I was only 17 months old. The children returned to their parents about a year later, but by 2014, further allegations of extensive sexual abuse and neglect within the home surfaced and the children were again removed into care. Thereafter, I spent time in a number of placements, many of them breaking down because of I’s challenging behaviours. In 2016, I was placed on a Care and Protection Guardianship Order until the age of 18. This order expired in May 2023. When I was 13, an older sibling suicided. I struggled to cope and turned to drugs. He was expelled from school. Behavioural difficulties escalated. I refused to work with Child Safety Services and declined assistance from many support services. He would often run away from foster placements. His residential care placement broke down and I ultimately returned to live with his parents in 2019, when he was 14. The family home did not provide him with any stability, nor appropriate adult guidance. His relationship with his parents was largely fractured due to the complex family circumstances and the trauma to which he had been exposed.
In March 2022, he had to be removed from the family home by police due to assaulting his parents. Thereafter, I has lived at various shelters and at a residential care placement, but due to his frequently aggressive and unpredictable behaviours, many such placements have been short term. The reports suggest that over many years I has refused treatment or assistance for his trauma and mental health issues. He has regularly turned to drugs as a coping mechanism.
I’s history of offending as a youth dates back to 2020. He has pleaded guilty to matters, including unlawfully setting fire to property, injuring property, driving unlicensed and failing to stop and comply with the duties of a driver involved in a crash. In August 2021, he was dealt with for offences involving unlawfully possessing knives in public, and offences against police. In 2022, he pleaded guilty to common assault against his father and further offences against police. In January 2023, he pleaded guilty to a very serious matter of assault committed against a support worker. The allegations involved him restraining the support worker holding a knife to her throat, threatening to stab her, physically assaulting her, including cutting her leg, and making threats to her whilst holding a knife towards her neck. At one point, he forced her to eat a sticky note. For this matter, and a number of offences which were committed against police when he was arrested, he was sentenced to ten months and 20 days youth detention. He was released after serving five months and ten days.
The report of Ms Van der Wijngaart, dated 5 February 2023, notes as follows:
“[I] has experienced significant trauma since infancy by being witness to neglect and all levels of abuse…he has exhibited anti-social behaviour since early primary school age…over his life time, [I] has exhibited multiple concerning acts, including emotionally abusive behaviours towards his siblings, physically abusive behaviour towards peers, verbal and threatening behaviour, especially to those with whom he has a relationship…property damage, carrying weapons, odd behaviours and periods of disassociation and extreme behaviour. His mental health and disturbing and potentially lethal behaviours are difficult to manage. [I] does not respond well to authority figures or those in helping roles. [I] is unmotivated and disinterested in treatment options and refuses any form of medical intervention or assessment…[I’s] cognitive abilities are likely to be below average with a high likelihood of learning disorders.”
The report of Dr Atherton, dated 24 January 2024, indicates, inter alia, that I was admitted to Wilfred Lopes Centre on 19 July 2023 for psychiatric assessment and management following concerning behaviours being observed after his remand in custody for this matter on 9 April 2023. Dr Atherton noted that it was difficult to establish any genuine rapport with I and the engagement lasted only as long as it met I’s perceived interest. I was reticent to discuss his trauma background, and it was noted that he engaged superficially. No overtly delusional behaviour was detected. It was difficult for a comprehensive diagnostic assessment to be undertaken because of I’s reluctance to engage.
It was noted that his symptoms were consistent with a major depressive episode and that his symptoms improved with anti-depressant treatment. It was also noted that whilst at Wilfred Lopes Centre, I had significant problems with interpersonal, emotional and behavioural functioning, consistent with what the reports established had been evident from childhood. The behavioural issues appear to be pervasive and severe and their persistence into adulthood implies, in Dr Atherton’s opinion, the presence of an underlying personality disorder. In particular, Dr Atherton observed that I showed significant difficulties in his emotional regulation and responses, hostility and mistrust, had impaired empathic capacity, difficulties forming and maintaining positive relations, social detachment and prominent dissocial features. It was noted that I struggles to conform with social norms and is prone to the use of aggressive and violent behaviours without evident remorse, or willingness to acknowledge wrongdoing, or accept responsibility.
Dr Atherton, at that point, considered that I met the criteria for Anti-social Personality Disorder, but noted that further personality assessment, including psychopathy assessment, was required to confirm any diagnosis.
The next report of Dr Atherton, dated 27 June 2024, was provided after further personality assessment was undertaken during I’s stay at the Wilfred Lopes Centre from July 2023 to January 2024. This report included the following:
“Based on the assessment undertaken, it is evident that [I] has exhibited significant disturbances in interpersonal, emotional and behavioural functioning from childhood, worsening through adolescence, which now persisting into adulthood, indicated underlying personality dysfunction. He shows significant difficulties in his emotional regulation and responses, sense of identity, hostility and mistrust/suspiciousness, impaired empathic capacity, difficulties forming and maintaining positive relationships, social detachment and prominent dissocial features…he has exhibited evidence of problems conforming with social norms, deceitfulness, irritability, impulsivity, the rationalisation and use of aggression and violence without evident remorse, and little willingness to acknowledge wrongdoing or accept responsibility. The assessment has identified features indicative of psychopathic personality dysfunction, manifesting with problems in effective, lifestyle, anti-social and interpersonal facets. Psychopathy, when it is present, is a significant risk factor linked with elevated risk of future violence.”
The report of Dr Atherton, dated 13 March 2025, was provided after I had pleaded guilty to these charges. It is a lengthy and comprehensive report, detailing I’s long and complicated trauma background and mental health difficulties. The report indicates that I has now been diagnosed with schizophrenia, and it is likely that he was in a “prodromal” phase of schizophrenia from around mid-2022, evolving through the period in which these crimes occurred. Dr Atherton completed a risk assessment for future violent offending and noted I has significant risks across the eight most prominent risk factors for criminal recidivism and is rated in the “very high” range of risk.
Dr Atherton noted I’s risk of future violence needed to be understood as involving a complex interaction between a number of contributory risk factors, complicated by the existence of the now identified mental illness. He noted many of the areas of personality dysfunction were evident before the onset of mental illness, and therefore, in his view, were more likely to be rooted in I’s upbringing, including disrupted early attachment experiences and exposure to episodes of trauma and abuse. Therefore, in Dr Atherton’s opinion, simply treating I’s mental illness would not, by itself, address his future risk of violence. He noted that whilst treating the psychiatric presentation had been more a recent focus, following the formal diagnosis of schizophrenia, there remained a number of other complexities that required a significant amount of work to be done in terms of addressing risk factors for future offending.
Dr Atherton’s ultimate opinion was expressed as follows:
“[I’s] needs and risk management would be most appropriately addressed through an integrated approach which accommodates [I’s] need for psychiatric input, but where [I’s] overall rehabilitation and risk management is supported by clear boundaries, expectations, containment and the resources provided within a correctional framework.
I therefore do not recommend [I] be placed on a restriction order. These are indefinite orders which would, in practice, fully divert [I] from a correctional framework. In my view, [I] would be best assisted by an approach which draws on the strengths of the correctional framework with forensic mental health input, rather than an ‘either/or’ approach.
In my view, [I] would pose a significant risk of further serious violent offending if he were in the community imminently. …If a community disposition were being considered, there would need to be significant multi-agency and stakeholder engagement in planning [I’s] supports, supervisional approach and risk management.”
Dr Atherton’s report of 13 March 2025 made it clear that he was not recommending a restriction order. In short, he was of the view that whilst an admission to Wilfred Lopes Centre might treat the schizophrenia, such an order would not address the more complex personality issues which were strong risk factors for future violent offending. Despite Dr Atherton’s view, the material outlined in the reports caused me considerable concern, in terms of community protection. For that reason, when this matter came before me, I determined it was appropriate to hear evidence from Dr Atherton about whether a restriction order, rather than a supervision order, was not more appropriate.
Dr Atherton gave evidence on 14 August 2025. In evidence, he confirmed that I’s primary diagnosis was schizophrenia. He also noted that there were several features of I’s presentation which raised the diagnostic consideration for psychopathy. He said the most appropriate thing to do at present was to “maximally treat the psychosis and then revisit questions of personality dysfunction at a future time”. He also noted that with the “transition into adulthood from adolescence…there is still some potential for future maturation and adjustment”. He said that would be a process that would involve a lengthier rather than a shorter timeframe.
Dr Atherton agreed that I posed a risk to others’ physical safety, but said the successful treatment of I’s schizophrenia would not eliminate future risk of violence because of the existence of the complex underlying personality disorder and the other risk factors, which contributed to his anti-social conduct. For that reason, Dr Atherton maintained his position that a restriction order was not appropriate; predominately because a restriction order is an order that requires a person’s detention at the Wilfred Lopes Centre, which is a secure in-patient hospital, which provides psychiatric treatment only. At the Wilfred Lopes Centre, I’s schizophrenia would be treated but the underlying personality disorder characteristics would not be addressed, and moreover, the additional supports which would be required to address those risk factors, would not available at the Wilfred Lopes Centre.
Dr Atherton opined that in terms of future risk of violence, it was difficult to anticipate the trajectory that I’s complex needs would take. He was of the view that if I was to receive a custodial sentence, it would be necessary at a time prior to his release, to reassess what I’s response to treatment had been, and to assess the extent to which he had been able to successfully engage in other rehabilitative work within the prison environment.
Dr Atherton was of the view that a supervision order would provide, at an appropriate time, a framework within which I could engage with the Community Forensic Mental Health Service within the community, as there was an obvious need for assertive mental health follow up upon I’s ultimate release. Dr Atherton noted an advantage to a supervision order, as opposed to a treatment order, was that if there were breaches of the conditions of a supervision order, or concern as to a deteriorating mental health state, the supervision order provided a mechanism by which he could be returned to the Wilfred Lopes Centre.
Dr Atherton noted there were advantages to both the criminal justice framework and the forensic mental health framework, and that I did not fall neatly into the dichotomy between being a mentally ill and “non-mentally ill” offender. He opined that ideally there needed to be an approach which leveraged the advantages of both systems.
Dr Atherton also noted that he would not be comfortable with I being imminently released into the community under a supervision order. He noted that psychiatrically, I is still quite unwell and requires ongoing in-patient psychiatric treatment. He was of the view that I needed an additional period of stabilisation before it would be appropriate for him to return to the community.
In my view, s75 Sentencing Act does not permit the making of a restriction order unless the Court is satisfied that requisite treatment can be obtained by admission to a secure mental health unit, and such admission is recommended by the Chief Forensic Psychiatrist. Dr Atherton’s evidence is that the Wilfred Lopes Centre cannot support the full ambit of the treatment that I requires. He does not support his admission there. Taking into account all of the material that I have available for my consideration, and bearing in mind the extremely serious nature of this offending, I consider the most appropriate outcome is a custodial sentence, in conjunction with a supervision order. Section 75(2A) of the Sentencing Act provides that a Supreme Court may make a supervision order, in addition to any sentence it may impose, provided it is satisfied that the person appears to be suffering from a mental illness that requires treatment, the treatment can be obtained by releasing the person under the supervision of the Chief Psychiatrist, and the report of the Chief Psychiatrist recommends the release of the person under his or her supervision. Given the evidence of Dr Atherton as to the likely timing of any release of I into the community, I am satisfied of those matters. In my assessment, a custodial sentence, which would enable I to participate in rehabilitative programmes at Risdon Prison, coupled with a supervision order which would provide a regimented mental health framework upon his release, provides the best opportunity for the future risk of violent offending to be ameliorated.
I have determined, given the extremely serious nature of this conduct, the defendant’s previous criminal behaviour and his age when these crimes occurred, that it is appropriate to sentence I as an adult (he is now 20) and sentence pursuant to the provisions of the Sentencing Act, rather than the Youth Justice Act. The seriousness of this conduct is towards the highest end. For no reason, I inflicted a life-threatening stab wound to Dr Wong. Dr Wong’s life has been irrevocably changed as a consequence. It is not the first time that I has been violent to someone who is endeavouring to help him. I take into account I’s age and his plea of guilty. I accept that his deteriorating mental health condition (he was in the prodromal phase of schizophrenia) contributed to the offending, as did his personality disorder. The defendant’s complexities means he is not an appropriate vehicle through which general deterrence should be conveyed, but that consideration must be balanced against the weighty consideration of community protection in this sentencing exercise.
I make the following orders. INR, you are convicted of all matters. On complaints 51287/23 and 51173/23, you are sentenced to imprisonment for a period of six years, backdated to commence on 9 April 2023. I consider, given your young age and the fact you are now treated for a previously undiagnosed mental health condition, that it is appropriate to make allowance for parole, but given the seriousness of the criminal conduct it is not appropriate that parole be ordered at the earliest opportunity. It is also not appropriate that you be released into the community until suitable community resources are identified and engaged. Assertive case management by Community Forensic Mental Health will be required. Assessment around what that will look like, is best made by the Parole Board, at a point closer to your release date. I therefore order that you not be eligible for parole until you have served four years of the term of imprisonment.
Further, I make a supervision order, to commence on the date of the defendant’s release from custody, placing the defendant under the supervision of the Chief Forensic Psychiatrist. Conditions of that order will include the following:
- The defendant will comply with the reasonable directions of the Chief Forensic Psychiatrist, or his delegate, as to supervision;
- he will take medication or submit to the administration of medical, psychological or psychiatric treatment as determined by the Chief Forensic Psychiatrist or his delegate;
- he will reside in accommodation approved by the Chief Forensic Psychiatrist or his delegate, and not vary that accommodation without approval by the Chief Forensic Psychiatrist or his delegate;
- he will submit to the taking of blood or urine samples as required by the Chief Forensic Psychiatrist or his delegate, for analysis for medication levels, or for the analysis for the presence of illicit substances;
- he will not consume nor have in his possession any illicit substance;
- he will not leave the State of Tasmania without the consent of the Chief Forensic Psychiatrist or his delegate;
- he must permit staff from Community Forensic Mental Health Services and/or Adult Community Mental Health Services to visit him as and when required, and he must permit such staff access to his place of residence for the purpose of such attendances;
- he must inform Community Forensic Mental Health Services and/or Adult Community Mental Health Services of his place of residence and contact number, and advise of any change in such details within two working days of their occurrence; and
- he will not have in his possession, at any time, any knife or any other dangerous weapon, if in a public place.
I make forfeiture orders in respect to the flick knife, the 21.5 cm knife, and the Ridgeline knife found in the defendant’s possession at the time of his arrest.
On complaint 50942/2022 I record a conviction but make no further order. On complaints 51534/2022 and 51535/2022, I order the supervised release order be cancelled.