STATE OF TASMANIA v LAUREN JANE HEAZLEWOOD ESTCOURT J
COMMENTS ON PASSING SENTENCE 24 OCTOBER 2025
The defendant, Lauren Jane Heazlewood, aged 38 years old, has pleaded guilty to one count of unauthorised access to a computer and one count of fraud.
Between October 2011 and February 2020, she was employed by the Tasmanian Government as a Case Manager in the Driver Licensing section within the Registration and Licensing Services office of the Department of State Growth. Her duties included accessing and utilising her employer’s computer system called the “Motor Registry System” to interrogate information and update client details.
Between 17 January 2016 and 12 February 2020, she regularly received e-mails from Mr James Pearman, at her work e-mail address, listing motor vehicle registration numbers, the state or territory where the vehicles were and the make of the vehicle, so the defendant could obtain for him information about where the vehicles maybe located. The defendant obtained this information by using her work computer during work time and would then e-mail a copy of the NEVDIS screen showing the relevant persons personal information, and send that back to Mr Pearman using her work e-mail.
In return, Pearman paid the defendant for that information by transferring money to her daughter’s bank account with the Commonwealth Bank.
Pearman, or his company, West Coast Collections Pty Ltd, then sold the information the defendant had e-mailed to him to another company called Iceman Enterprises Pty Ltd, trading as Australian Repossession Network for which he and/or West Coast Collections were then paid.
Between 12 January 2017 and 12 February 2017, the defendant received more than 50 e-mails from Pearman listing registration numbers of vehicles, the state or territory where the vehicles were registered, and the make of the vehicle. On average, the list included details in respect of 25 vehicles.
On receiving the e-mail, the defendant accessed the Motor Registry System in order to gain access to the computer system and obtained the personal information of at least 1,126 people stored in that system, and who lived throughout Australia. The defendant gained access to the Department’s computer system in order to gain access to the system, and this was both intentional and without lawful excuse because she was not required to access it in the course of or for the purpose of her employment with the Department.
It appears from the statements to the defendant’s daughter’s Youth Saver Account with the Commonwealth Bank of Australia, that after the defendant sent the personal information to Pearman, he would then transfer sums ranging from $55 to $285. In total $48,093 was paid during the relevant period into that account. Either on the same day or shortly thereafter, the money was electronically transferred to accounts the defendant had with the Commonwealth Bank using the bank’s internet banking app.
The State notes that when the defendant unlawfully gained access to the Department’s computer system and e-mailed the information she obtained to Pearman, she had an intent to defraud her employer by fraudulent means and to obtain a financial benefit for herself and Pearman. I accept that.
Pearman passed the information on to Iceman Enterprises who, in turn, passed it onto the people who were looking for the vehicle. Those people would then pay Iceman Enterprises on average $200 to $300 per vehicle, and Iceman Enterprises would then in turn pay West Coast Collections on average $110 per vehicle. Accordingly, whilst the defendant received $48,093 as a result of her fraudulent conduct, Pearman made around $128,860.
The defendant has no relevant prior convictions. As noted, she is 38 years of age. She is married with two young children aged 9 and 8. She was born in Tasmania and had lived here for most of her life. About two and a half years ago she moved with her family to Mackay, Queensland following a fire that destroyed their house and belongings.
As is often the case, prior to this offending, the defendant had a prior solid work record. While working for Woolworths, she was involved in a traumatic incident where she and a colleague conducted a welfare check on their supervisor, intervening in a suicide attempt. She was recognised by emergency services for her efforts, however the incident had a lasting psychological impact.
In that regard, the defendant has a documented history of significant psychological vulnerability. She has received long-term care from her general practitioner in relation to a generalised anxiety disorder, and has been treated with various medications typically prescribed for major depressive disorders, anxiety and obsessive disorder. Her first involvement with psychological services occurred in 2009, following a period of domestic violence, involving both psychological and physical abuse.
The defendant now has full time employment again, across two jobs.
During the course of her employment with Transport Tasmania, she was introduced to Pearman, initially thought by her to be a legitimate customer with a debt collection business. It is said that it appeared to her at the time that her colleagues would often assist Pearman. He would already be aware of much of the information and was often seeking, or appeared to be seeking, confirmation of registration information over the phone. Over time, Pearman started requesting information via email.
At the time of the commencement of her offending in 2016, the defendant was experiencing financial stress. Pearman suggested that she open a bank account and he started putting money into her account. She claims did not appreciate the full criminality of what she was doing. I have difficulty accepting that, however I accept that she is quite disgusted with herself, that she would do this and cannot believe what she did, and she did not consider what Pearman was doing in on selling the information and profiting from that.
A psychological assessment provided by Mr Damien Thomas notes the significant impact these proceedings have had on the defendant. He concludes that the risk of future offending is low.
I am told it took some time to navigate and discuss the charges with the Director of Public Prosecutions, however the defendant ultimately pleaded guilty to all 262 counts on the indictment and she is entitled to the benefit of a discount on what would otherwise be an appropriate sentence in that regard. She has also indicated that she is willing to co-operate with the State in giving evidence against Pearman, or any other party involved in the matter, although I am told by the State that enquiries have revealed that there are no proceedings currently against Mr Pearman, and it is not known whether there will be.
While I regard the defendant’s crimes as involving a serious breach of trust, not dissimilar to a series of acts of embezzlement, the extent to which she benefited was at the lower end of the scale, and the somewhat unusual circumstances surrounding the offending, as well as the defendant’s compelling personal circumstances, lead me to conclude that a period of actual imprisonment is not required.
The defendant is convicted of the crimes to which she has pleaded guilty and I impose a single sentence. The defendant is sentenced to a period of 15 months’ imprisonment, which sentence I wholly suspend on condition that she commit no offence punishable by imprisonment for a period of two years.