A former primary school principal (the Offender) has been sentenced to 19 months' imprisonment by the ACT Supreme Court (the Court), but released on specific conditions, after pleading guilty to soliciting child pornography material. Evidence of the Offender's conduct was discovered by an employee of a Catholic Education Office, when a work iPhone and laptop was seized from him. The Offender connected with the Victim using a social media app, Grindr (the App) on the work iPhone.
The Offender was a principal of a primary school administered by the Catholic education system. He is now 58 years old. He made contact with the Victim on the App, who was 13 or 14 years old at the time. Although the users of this App are supposed to be over 18, like many social media apps, the Chief Justice said that 'there was no real means of enforcing that requirement'.
Following their introduction on the App, the Offender and the Victim began to communicate by text message. The Victim said that he may have told the Offender that he was 16 years of age. The age of consent in the Australian Capital Territory is 16 years, but 'child pornography material' includes material depicting a person under 18 years old.
The Offender and the Victim exchanged text messages. Initially, the Victim sent a photo of himself from the waist up. The Chief Justice said that 'it would have been quite clear to the [Offender] that the [Victim] was under 18 years old. The Offender agreed that he was aware that the Victim was under 18, but did not realise he was as young as 13 years old.
The Offender requested a photo of the Victim's genitals, and the Offender sent a photo of his genitals. The photo request from the Offender formed the basis of the charge of soliciting child pornography material, to which the Offender pleaded guilty.
There were further text conversations between the two. The Offender stated that he decided to terminate the contact, but the Chief Justice said that it may have been the Victim who did so.
It is reported by the Canberra Times that the Offender's iPhone, iPad and laptop were confiscated by the Catholic Education Office over an IT policy breach. The Offender was asked to hand over the passwords and pin codes for the devices, and he complied. They then referred the matter to police, and the devices were forensically examined.
This crime had an impact on the Victim and his family. At the time, the Victim was exhibiting angry behaviour, and directing this inwards by self-harming behaviour. The parents were not, at the time, aware of the cause of this behaviour. The Victim has received counselling, and will continue to for some time. The Victim's mother has also received counselling.
The parents are now 'hyper vigilant' about their son's safety, and 'guarded about permitting him the independence that would normally be allowed to an adolescent boy'.
The Offender was sentenced for one count of soliciting child pornography material, despite the interactions between the Offender and the Victim lasting three months.
The Court recounted his personal circumstances. He was 58 years old, and married to his wife for 35 years. He no longer works as an educator, and is now a part-time bookkeeper. His wife has returned to work as a teacher in order to support them both. A psychologist found that the Offender's use of the App was 'a distraction and [a] dysfunctional coping strategy for dealing with emotional stressors'. It was found that he was a person 'otherwise of unblemished character'.
However, the crime was a serious one. The maximum penalty that could be imposed is 15 years' imprisonment. The young age of the Victim was found to be an important consideration in the sentence, as was the nature of the material solicited.
The Court also found that the Offender was contrite. He entered a plea of guilty at an early stage, and engaged in counselling. As such, his 'willingness to assist the course of justice' entitled him to a 20% discount on his sentence. The Court found that 'the community will be best protected if the [Offender] continues with the rehabilitation that he is currently undergoing'.
In the end, the Offender was sentenced to 19 months' imprisonment, but allowed to be released upon security in the sum of $1000, subject to the conditions that he: