Travis Barnard: ‘Cold-hearted’ man who brazenly clawed at just-dead girlfriend’s superannuation loses appeal

A “cold-hearted’ man who brazenly made himself the sole beneficiary of his partner’s $400,000 superannuation fund mere hours after she died has lost his appeal against conviction and sentence. Travis Barnard was found guilty of fraud after a District Court of WA trial last year and sentenced to three years and 10 months’ imprisonment, with eligibility for parole after one year and 11 months. The court was told he used Kim Heptinstall’s mobile phone to access her account and change the nominated beneficiary just six-and-a-half hours after she suddenly suffered an apparent cardiac arrest at their Woodbridge home in July 2019. Four days earlier, the 32-year-old had undergone gastric sleeve surgery. The sentence came with damning remarks from District Court Judge David Maclean, who labelled Barnard “glib”, “superficial”, selfish, “cold-hearted” and “calculated”. But despite that, Barnard then ploughed on with another legal gambit — bringing a civil claim against Ms Heptinstall’s estate by claiming he was her legal de facto. He needed to prove he and Ms Heptinstall lived together continuously for two years, and insisted that was the case, despite them being apart for some months - and evidence that he had posted on singles sites and advertised his services as a male escort. The bold bid failed, with Supreme Court Justice Matthew Howard finding Barnard was an “unsatisfactory” witness who “embellished” elements of evidence for his own ends. And on Wednesday, his attempt to overturn his criminal conviction and challenge his sentence was dismissed. Among his arguments for appealing the verdict was that the trial judge had erred by telling the jury they only needed to be satisfied Barnard intended to commit fraud with his acts. “A serious offence can be facilitated without being completed,” the Court of Appeal judges found. “In any event, in this case, the prosecution case was that a fraud had been committed because the appellant had . . . improved his position as a potential beneficiary of the proceeds of the superannuation account.” The intended benefit was only potential because he amended the entry for her non-binding beneficiary nomination, which is subject to a trustee’s discretion. Barnard also argued the sentencing judge erred by failing to take into account that he reasonably believed he was entitled to be treated as the sole beneficiary. The appeal judges found the offending was serious, involving a gross breach of trust, large potential benefit and concerted efforts to conceal it including withholding Ms Heptinstall’s phone from her family. “Although the offence was opportunistic in the sense that the appellant could not have anticipated his partner’s death, it was an offence that was aptly described as a cold-hearted and calculated breach of trust,” they said. And while the sentence could be viewed as being towards the higher end of the discretionary range, it was not unreasonable or plainly unjust, the judges found. He was not remorseful, did not have the benefit of prior good character and was at risk of reoffending, they added.