STATE OF TASMANIA v PHILLIP BRADLEY HARRIS 26 JUNE 2024
COMMENTS ON PASSING SENTENCE JAGO J
Mr Harris you have pleaded guilty to one count of attempting to influence a juror contrary to s 63(a) of the Juries Act 2003 and s 299 of the Criminal Code. On 3 December 2019 the trial of Bruce Thomas Boyer v State of Tasmania commenced in the Launceston Supreme Court before his Honour Justice Pearce. Mr Boyer had pleaded not guilty to a charge of committing an unlawful act intended to cause bodily harm. The allegation was that Mr Boyer had been in an ongoing dispute with the complainant Mr Rushton. It was alleged that on 29 July 2017 Mr Boyer had deliberately driven his car at Mr Rushton whilst he was standing in [address stated]. You lived at [address stated] at the time, and it was alleged Mr Boyer had driven past this residence immediately prior to colliding with Mr Rushton. When the incident occurred you were spoken to as a witness. You made a statement in which you said you had not seen the actual collision between any vehicle and Mr Rushton but had heard it, and had seen a person thrown through the air.
You were served with a summons to attend at preliminary proceedings in January 2018. You did not appear. In the lead up to the trial, the State had attempted to arrange a briefing with you on two occasions. You had refused to attend such briefings. You were handed a final notice requiring you to appear as a witness in the trial, on 18 November 2019. You told the police officer who served the final notice that you would not be attending. You did not attend Court on 18 November 2019 as required by the final notice. Subsequently the State, in consultation with the defence, determined that given your obvious lack of cooperation, and the limited content of your original statement, that you would not be called as a witness on the trial.
On 4 December 2019 the jury went on a view. They observed the areas said to be relevant to the incident between Mr Boyer and Mr Rushton, including attending at [address stated]. As the jury were being shown the [address stated] area, you came out of your house at [address stated], and began yelling loudly and aggressively. Amongst the things you said were the following:
- He’s guilty…he ran him over the cunt.
- Bruce Boyer is guilty.
- He did it on purpose. He ran him over on purpose.
- My name is Phillip Harris. Look me up on Facebook. I am a witness.
- The fucking cunt is guilty as anything, he did it deliberately.
- Take me down to the Court house, I witnessed everything.
- I saw him do it, lock him away.
One of the Court security officers also heard you tell a person at your residence that the group on the street was “the jury for Bruce Boyer”.
After this incident the jury returned to the Supreme Court. Defence counsel made an application for the jury to be discharged. The application was granted. Later that afternoon in a text message exchange with the partner of another witness, you indicated that you did not care that your behaviour caused a mistrial.
The State relisted the Boyer trial in September 2020. Negotiations resulted in the matter resolving by way of a plea of guilty to the alternate charge of causing grievous bodily harm by dangerous driving.
Your trial in this matter was due to commence on 24 June 2024. Upon the indictment being put, and immediately prior to the empanelment of the jury, you entered a plea of guilty to the charge. All witnesses had been briefed and arrangements had been made for them to travel to Launceston in anticipation of the trial. Whilst a plea of guilty always retains some utilitarian value, in this instance, given the lateness of the plea and the strength of the evidence against you, it is, in my view, of minimal value in the sentencing exercise.
You are now 49 years of age. You were 46 at the time the crime was committed. By way of prior convictions you have many, including driving offences, common assault, matters under the Misuse of Drugs Act, bail offences, breaches of police family violence orders, dishonesty offences and destruction of property offences. Whilst there is nothing directly relevant, you certainly do not present as a law abiding individual. It is noteworthy that your last convictions were imposed in June 2023, for matters that occurred throughout 2022. I am told that between November 2022 and September 2023 you spent some time in custody for matters unrelated to this charge, and which are still pending. During that time in custody you saw a psychiatrist and you were given medication to assist with your post-traumatic stress disorder. You have suffered with that condition for many years, arising from a difficult childhood in which you were often subject to physical violence. I am told that since being on that medication you have been far more stable, particularly in terms of your mood. Following your release from custody, you have also been accessing support through a neighbourhood house. I have received a report from the manager of Starting Point Neighbourhood House which speaks highly of your attitude generally and your efforts to make improvements in your life.
In my view this is a serious crime. Any free and democratic society depends in large measure upon the maintenance of a fair, just and uncorrupted judicial system. Juries are a valued and integral part of that judicial system. The community and the courts will not tolerate interference with juries. Any such behaviour has the potential to threaten the integrity of the criminal justice system and may dissuade potential jurors from being prepared to sit as a juror. Jurors are given no choice about the services they are required to provide and thus any act which might potentially intimidate, influence or concern them, must be strongly punished so as to guard against any dilution of the integrity of our justice system.
I also note your behaviour adversely impacted upon Mr Boyer and Mr Rushton, both of whom had to wait an additional period of time before the matter was finalised, potentially adding to the stress and anxiety commonly experienced by both witnesses and accused persons in the lead up to criminal trials. In my view, I would be failing in my duty if I did not impose a strong penalty to mark the seriousness nature of your wrongdoing and send a clear message to the community that the Court will always act to protect the judicial system.
A period of imprisonment is warranted. I have grappled with the question of whether you must serve at least some of it, given the serious nature of this crime. I have determined that because it does appear you have been making progress in stabilising your life in more recent times, it is appropriate to suspend the period of imprisonment. But you should clearly understand Mr Harris, it was a finely balanced determination, and if you do not comply with the conditions of suspension, you will be required to serve the period of imprisonment unless it is unjust to do so.
I make the following orders. You are convicted and sentenced to seven months’ imprisonment. I suspend the execution of the whole of that sentence on condition that for a period of two years you not commit any other offence punishable by imprisonment.