STATE OF TASMANIA v BENJAMIN JOSEPH HEAZLEWOOD 25 OCTOBER 2019
COMMENTS ON PASSING SENTENCE ESTCOURT J
The defendant, Benjamin Joseph Heazlewood aged 40, has pleaded guilty three counts of interfering with a witness and five counts of attempting to interfere with a witness.
On 18 February 2019 a Police Family Violence Order was made against him, protecting Ms L. That order included conditions that the defendant not threaten, harass, abuse or assault Ms L or enter her premises, however it otherwise enabled contact between the two.
However, on 27 March 2019, an order was made which prevented contact between the defendant and Ms L.
In June 2019, the defendant was remanded in custody on three complaints alleging multiple counts of family violence offences committed against the complainant.
He was remanded in custody in relation to complaint 51173/2019 on 25 March 2019. The other two complaints were subsequently listed and the defendant was also remanded on those.
The complaints were listed for hearing in the Devonport Magistrates Court on Friday 28 June 2019. Witnesses to be called included Ms L, Ms T and Mr C. Mr C is a cousin of Ms L’s and Ms T is Mr C’s partner. They were at the address at the time of one of the alleged incidents.
Between 12 and 26 June 2019, the defendant made a number of phone calls from prison to a mobile telephone listed in the name Ms T. The calls were made over the Tasmanian Prison Service Arunta telephone system, which monitors and records calls made by inmates.
Count 3 was committed on 13 June 2019. The defendant called Ms T at 1:53pm, and following a discussion with her, he requested she contact Ms L, and ask Ms L not to give him up and to just say that she could not remember what happened.
Counts 5 to 7 involved further telephone conversation which have been outlined fully in the Crown papers. On 21 June 2019, the defendant contacted Ms T and again enquired about Ms L, saying, “Just say youse can’t remember and just tell [Ms L] to say the same thing”.
Similar conversations were had on 22 June 2019 and 26 June 2019 which comprised counts 9 and 11 on the complaint.
Counts 13 & 14 involved telephone contact with Ms Ton 26 June 2019, and again the defendant repeated his request for Ms T to speak to Ms L, and he said, “Youse alright for Friday and that as well? Like even if you say you can’t remember, if you know what I mean, like…”, to which Ms T responded, “Yeah, exactly. Well yeah, you should be able to get out then.”
The hearing proceeded on Friday, 28 June 2019. However ultimately the defendant pleaded guilty to the majority of matters following after negotiations with prosecution.
On 3 July 2019 the defendant was advised by the Prison Service that Tasmania Police wished to interview him in relation to this matter however he declined their visit as he was entitled to do.
As a result of the above contact with Ms T and Mr C and his attempted contact with Ms L (via Ms T), he was charged on 31 July 2019 with complaint 53030/2019. The offences include breaches (or attempted breaches) of the Interim Family Violence Order and those matters, I note, are listed for sentence in the Devonport Magistrates Court on 1 November 2019.
By his plea of guilty to the crimes on complaint 53030/2019, the defendant admits that he made the calls to Ms T with the intent to pervert or obstruct the due course of justice, by dissuading Ms L, Ms T and/or Mr C from giving evidence at the hearing on.
He has been in custody in respect of these matters since 31 July 2019.
The defendant has an unenviable record of prior convictions, including breaches of court orders imposing periods of disqualification from driving, as well as family violence orders.
Apart from his pleas of guilty, which would appear to be an acceptance of the inevitable, rather than contrition, there is little that can be said in mitigation. Nonetheless he is entitled to a discount on sentence for the utilitarian benefit of his plea of guilty.
The defendant has an acquired brain injury and also suffers from depression. He has had a problem with the use of illicit substances, including alcohol. He has had a good work record, but has not worked since he suffered an injury in a motor vehicle accident in 2010. The relationship between him and Ms L is over.
The crime of interfering with a witness is serious criminal conduct because of its potential to undermine and interfere with the administration of justice. It cannot be tolerated. In the defendant’s case, while I acknowledge that no threats were used, the conduct was also in breach of a family violence order put in place to protect Ms L from the defendant and prohibiting contact with her directly or indirectly. That however is a matter for the magistrate, and the far greater criminality lies in the offences with which I am dealing today, noting the aggravating consequences only of those other matters.
The offending was, nonetheless, a course of conduct, albeit continued in relation to the same matter before the Court, and it should be viewed as such, notwithstanding the multiplicity of charges.
I acknowledge the defendant’s pleas of guilty and give him credit for that. I also accept that there is a degree of overlap in the offending, notwithstanding that it involves multiple counts. The defendant is convicted on all counts to which he has pleaded guilty before me and is sentenced to six months’ imprisonment. The sentence is backdated to 31 July 2019.