STATE OF TASMANIA v AMBER JESSICA ROYER 23 DECEMBER 2020
COMMENTS ON PASSING SENTENCE WOOD J
Amber Jessica Royer has pleaded guilty to a crime of committing an unlawful act intended to cause bodily harm contrary to s 170(1) of the Criminal Code and attempt to interfere with a witness.
The victim of the crimes is Ms S. As at the 12 November 2019, she was to be called as a witness for the State in the trial of RB for crimes of maintaining a sexual relationship with a young person and rape. Ms S was one of the complainants. She was due to give evidence on the 14 November.
The defendant Ms Royer lived with RB and was aware that Ms S was to give evidence.
At about 5pm on 12 November, the complainant was at her home in New Norfolk. She was approached outside her house by a woman she did not know. It was the defendant who asked her if she was the person “…”. The complainant told her she was, and the defendant asked if they could talk about RB, referring to him by his first name. The complainant understood that the defendant had been living with Mr B but thought that that was no longer the case. The complainant gave the defendant a hug and let her onto the property to an undercover area to talk.
Inside, the complainant tried to find out why she was there. The defendant kept saying she was confused and wanted to hear the complainant’s side of the story. The complainant told her that she could not talk about the case. The complainant asked her husband to leave so that she could talk to the defendant privately. They moved to the backyard where the conversation continued in circles. The defendant had her right arm up her sleeve and the complainant asked the defendant if she had a phone and was recording the conversation. The defendant denied this and the complainant asked to look at her arm, the defendant showed her, but the complainant could not see any item.
The complainant rang the defendant’s mother who said she would come around. The conversation continued. The defendant questioned the complainant about “putting [Mr B] in gaol” and to think about his kids. The complainant replied that she could not let him get away with what he had done. The defendant became upset and the complainant hugged her. The defendant sat down and became quiet. The complainant thought the defendant’s mother had arrived and started walking towards the door. The defendant came up behind her and placed her left arm across the complainant’s neck and chest. The complainant reached up and grabbed the defendant’s hand. The defendant’s right hand came across the complainant’s right shoulder. The defendant was armed with a knife. The complainant recalls a sensation of pain and receiving a wound to her right lower lip which started bleeding. She believes that her hand deflected the knife away from her throat and onto her lip.
Initially the complainant thought that the defendant had punched her. Then she saw the knife in the defendant’s right hand and the complainant grabbed her hand. They became unbalanced and fell onto a go-kart buggy. The complainant still had hold of the defendant’s hand and was calling out to her husband to come and help. He came outside and the complainant told him to grab the knife but not to hurt the defendant who was crying. The knife was tied to the defendant’s arm, and Mr S managed to remove it. The defendant’s mother arrived and the police were called.
The defendant’s intention was to go to the complainant’s address, armed with a knife with the purpose of scaring Ms S away from giving evidence. Once the situation developed, and at the moment the wound was inflicted, she held an intention to wound Ms S or to cause her bodily harm.
This state of mind is at odds with a remark the defendant made to her mother at the scene that she wanted to kill the complainant to save Mr B from going to gaol. However that remark is not relied upon as indicative of the defendant’s true state of mind. Rather, it was made in the context of the tumultuous emotional situation.
Police attended and the defendant was arrested. She told police she did not remember the incident except she remembers being on the ground, and the presence of her mother. She thought she had experienced something like a panic attack. She referred to having mental health conditions and being prescribed medication. She acknowledged she was responsible for the injury but did not recall what had happened.
The defendant has been custody since the incident, which is now over a year.
The complainant sustained a small 1cm incised wound on her face extending between her bottom lip and chin into her mouth and a fractured front lower tooth. She attended the Royal Hobart Hospital and her wound was sutured.
Ms S gave evidence in the trial of Mr B on the 18 November, just 6 days after this incident. Giving evidence was particularly traumatic because of the wounding incident. Ultimately, he was found guilty, and was sentenced on 12 December 2019 to a very lengthy period of imprisonment.
The complainant has been significantly affected by this incident and experiences extreme moments of terror. The incident has attracted considerable attention in the community but given the background to the matter, the complainant is not able to explain the situation fully, which has led to suspicions about her, which of course, is most unfair. Her children have been very distressed by the incident and have suffered significant levels of anxiety.
This crime arose from an unusual combination of circumstances. The defendant is a young woman now aged 23, 22 at the time of offending. She has no prior convictions. She experienced mental health issues growing up and into adolescence, and is psychologically fragile. When the defendant was 17 years of age, she began living with Mr B, a man in his 50’s. She lived with both him and his wife and was working for him from when she was 17 years of age. He ran a business from his home as a disability support service provider and people with disabilities lived in the home, and the defendant was employed as a carer. She had a relevant qualification in this field. From the outset, Mr B exerted considerable influence and domination over her and this extended to a sexual relationship. The level of his domination and control was extreme. It extended to locking her in her room for significant periods, he forbad her to see her family and friends, and she was not permitted to have a mobile phone. He controlled her finances. He persuaded her that he loved her and that he would marry her and they would have children. He convinced her that her mother did not care for her, and that her mother was behind the criminal charges that he faced. He inflicted violence and physical abuse upon her and then convinced her that she had inflicted the injuries on herself. The defendant was admitted to hospital a number of times as a result of his violence or her attempts to self-harm. It is noted that he attended one of the sessions with the defendant in 2017 with Community Mental Health Services and was banned from further sessions due to his angry and controlling behaviour towards the defendant. As a consequence he said that she could not attend any further appointments.
As the trial approached he manipulated her further. He told her that if Ms S gave evidence he faced a significant period of time in gaol and their hopes of marriage and a future would be dashed. He continually told her he was going to kill himself. He provided her with details of how he planned to do that. He concocted a plan for her to visit the complainant and to scare her so she would not give evidence against him. He provided the knife with the wrist lanyard. He told her that if she did not go and scare the complainant he would commit suicide.
The defendant recalls the immediate aftermath of the assault but not the act itself. She has a history of disassociation consistent with that lack of recall. She became keenly upset when her mother arrived. The influence of Mr B had damaged her relationship with her mother.
Once the defendant was remanded in custody defence counsel arranged for her to see Dr Michael Jordan, Consultant Pyschiatrist. He has completed an assessment and provided a report dated 12 October.
The report canvasses a number of considerations. Dr Jordan notes that Ms Royer showed some of the features of a borderline personality disorder during the relationship with Mr B and the period leading up to the alleged offending. Mr B’s manipulation of the relationship intensified some of those traits and he used them to his advantage when coercively controlling Ms Royer. The complicating factor in her presentation in the period 2016 through to 2019 was her relationship with him and the destabilising effect that the relationship was having upon her. The characteristics of her relationship with Mr B should be viewed as at the level of trauma. The features of her personality structure made her emotionally fragile and vulnerable to the manipulative tactics actioned by the much older Mr B and her need to appease him overrode her normal level of sensibility.
Dr Jordan notes that during her early teenage years she exhibited mild symptoms of personality dysfunction in the form of self-harm and a degree of risk-taking and had some contact with Mental Health Services. She later had contact with Mental Health Services between approximately November 2016 and up until the months just prior to her offending.
Ms Royer had begun her relationship with Mr B when still a teenager. Once under the influence of Mr B, the dynamics of that relationship, manipulated by Mr B, further exacerbated the frailties within her personality structure leading to a decline in her stability. He was able to play on specific features of her personality dysfunction, in particular her fear of being abandoned by Mr B and her proclivity for anger, even physical violence.
Dr Jordan notes that during the period in custody Ms Royer has shown features of a borderline personality disorder and attention deficit hyperactivity disorder. During this period, particularly in recent months, she has re-evaluated her relationship with Mr B, and her mental health has become considerably more stable. Dr Jordan notes that Ms Royer’s mental state has gradually improved and she has been able to receive medication that she was previously receiving.
Dr Jordan considers that the defendant’s personality disorder and the effects upon her actions are grounds for moderation of specific deterrence. He notes in this context, that she is remorseful of her actions and feels both saddened and humiliated by how Mr B came to dominate her. He says that now she has been able to develop a better understanding of her relationship with Mr B. The defendant is now aware that she will need to manage her relationships moving forward in a very different fashion. She has now re-engaged with her family which Dr Jordan sees as reassuring. He says that it is evident that she is a somewhat naïve but a reasonably able young individual who is keen to progress her life in a constructive fashion. Dr Jordan states that she may require further mental health input, best served by psychological work to allow her to understand her circumstances in recent years and its impact.
Dr Jordan regards a degree of supervision, potentially via a community correction order, would be useful during a period of reintegration into the community. Such an order would can also direct her towards mandated psychological therapy and review by a psychiatrist.
I have a report from Community Corrections recommending the defendant for a community correction order.
I note further that Ms Royer has been co-operative with police in relation to a fraud investigation. She has supports within the community, and she is intending to live with her mother upon her release, and is looking forward to building upon that relationship with her mother.
The defendant is a youthful first offender who has committed a serious crime of violence and a crime of intimidation with potential for grave consequences, including lethal or very serious injury and deflecting the complainant from giving evidence. The consequences that did result are serious, the complainant sustained a facial wound and was subjected to a terrifying ordeal which added ultimately to the trauma and distress of giving evidence. It can be expected that some of that trauma and distress will be lasting.
The crime was not Ms Royer’s initiative and she was subjected to considerable pressure and indeed manipulation and coercive efforts to carry out the crime. Due to her personality structure, she was emotionally vulnerable due to the manipulative tactics of the instigator and planner of this crime, Mr B. Her isolation from positive influences such as her family, as well as her young age and naivety contributed to her vulnerability to his influence. These are factors in mitigation. There is, I find, a reduced need for personal deterrence. Her offending arises in the context of these very discrete circumstances. She is remorseful and can see now how she was dominated by Mr B.
There are good prospects for her rehabilitation. Sound progress has been made over the last 12 months. She is alert now to her vulnerability and the need for mental health supports in order to manage her responses. Given her age, her reform is an important consideration and her rehabilitation is in the interests of the community too.
There remains a need for general deterrence and punishment remains a sentencing goal. It must not be overlooked that Ms Royer has spent over a year in prison as a young first offender. This is substantial punishment.
These crimes require a term of imprisonment. Balancing the relevant considerations, I impose the following orders:
I record convictions. I impose a global sentence of two years and six months’ imprisonment. I backdate that sentence to 12 November 2019, the date that Ms Royer was remanded in custody. I suspend the balance from today on strict conditions for the maximum period of three years. The first condition is that the defendant must not commit an offence punishable by imprisonment for the period that the order is in force, namely three years from today.
The second condition of the suspended sentence is that the defendant is subject to the supervision of a probation officer for 18 months. In addition, she is to be subject to the core conditions of a community correction order. Ms Royer, you must report within one clear working day to a probation officer at 114 Bathurst Street, you must then report as required, you must not leave or stay outside Tasmania without permission, you must comply with the reasonable and lawful directions of your probation officer and provide notice of your change of address or employment within two working days. You must, as a condition of the order, for the period of 18 months submit to the supervision of a probation officer as required by the probation officer, and you must also submit to medical, psychological or psychiatric assessment or treatment as directed by a probation officer.