Gosford cop Bjorn Lensmand Holston appeals finding he falsified police facts out of ‘stubbornness or pride’: court

A Central Coast police officer is appealing a magistrate’s finding that he falsified facts to secure a conviction out of “stubbornness or pride” because he didn’t want to be wrong, a court has heard.

Brisbane Water Senior Constable Bjorn Holston has appealed his convictions for perverting the course of justice and modifying restricted data. (AAP Image/Sue Graham)

A Gosford Senior Constable, sentenced to the equivalent of a year’s jail, allegedly lied on a facts sheet to “cure an evidentiary defect” in one of his cases after he was criticised by a fellow officer, a court has heard.

Brisbane Water Senior Constable Bjorn Lensmand Holston faced Downing Centre District Court on Tuesday where he appealed two convictions for perverting the course of justice and modifying restricted data.

The 44-year-old was found guilty by a magistrate of the two offences after a hearing in the Local Court last October and sentenced to an intensive correction order (ICO) for 12 months with 100 hours of community service.

An ICO is considered the equivalent of a jail sentence but served in the community.

The court heard Sen Con Holston was investigating an incident involving a knife in a car parked in a driveway on Sherwood Drive, Springfield, on February 4, 2022.

However when he was questioned about how the knife came to be in the vehicle and whether the weapon was ever in a public place, which the court heard was critical to proving his case, the Crown argued he changed the facts sheet to say police had seen the car turn into the driveway.

Sen Con Holston appealed his convictions in the Downing Centre District Court on Tuesday. File image: John Grainger

His barrister argued there was a lot of evidence indicating the car had turned into the driveway. He said the facts were changed before the charge was certified to go to court and if Sen Con Holston had changed the facts, resulting in them inferring that he had seen the car turn, it was simply a “factual error”.

He said it was never an attempt to pervert the course of justice and there was no “motive”.

Sen Con Holston’s barrister argued there was no “motive” but the Crown said he allegedly did it out of pride to avoid being wrong. Picture: Blake Foden

However the Crown prosecutor said Sen Con Holston felt compelled to change the facts to “cure an evidentiary defect” after he was criticised by another officer.

“There is an inference available that stubbornness or pride was the reason for making the change,” the Crown prosecutor said.

“People, just as a matter of everyday experience, people make these sorts of errors in judgement all the time, they refuse to accept they’re wrong about things.

“But in any event, motive isn’t an element of the offence. The offending could be entirely unexplained.

“The offence is doing an act with intent to pervert the course of justice. It doesn’t matter if the course of justice was perverted or not, it doesn’t matter if [the knife owner] was guilty as sin of this offence, what matters is the appellant [Sen Con Holston] did the act by making the modification with intent to pervert the course of justice. And the root of that was a lie that he had seen the car drive into the driveway.”

Judge Leonie Flannery is expected to deliver her decision on Thursday.