Ackland v The King

[2025] SASCA 15

SUPREME COURT OF SOUTH AUSTRALIA

(Court of Appeal: Criminal)

ACKLAND v THE KING

[2025] SASCA 15

Judgment of the Court of Appeal  

(The Honourable Acting Chief Justice Livesey, the Honourable Justice S Doyle and the Honourable Justice Bleby)

11 February 2025

CRIMINAL LAW - APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL - APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE - GROUNDS FOR INTERFERENCE - SENTENCE MANIFESTLY EXCESSIVE OR INADEQUATE

CRIMINAL LAW - PARTICULAR OFFENCES - OFFENCES AGAINST THE PERSON - SEXUAL OFFENCES - SENTENCE

Application for permission to appeal against sentence on the ground that it is manifestly excessive.

The appellant was sentenced to a single sentence of imprisonment for 14 years, together with a non-parole period of 11 years, 2 months and 12 days, for 14 counts of child sex offending against 14 boys, pursuant to s 26 of the Sentencing Act 2017 (SA):

1.one count of sexual abuse of a child, contrary to s 50(1) of the Criminal Law Consolidation Act 1935 (SA) (the CLCA), for which the maximum penalty was life imprisonment;

2.13 counts of aggravated communicating with a child for a prurient purpose, contrary to s 63B(3)(b) of the CLCA, for which the maximum penalty was imprisonment for 12 years (since increased to 15 years).

The circumstance of aggravation was that the appellant was a teacher.  The offending spanned more than two years and the 14 boys were all students of the rural school at which the appellant taught, aged between 12 and 17, turning 18 years. 

The appellant used Snapchat to engage in sexualised communications which in some cases progressed to exchanging a large number of sexual images and videos.

The offending continued despite the appellant receiving a number of warnings and being interviewed by police.  The offending was not isolated and there was uncharged offending preceding and during the charged offending.  The offending only stopped on the appellant’s arrest.

In an interview with a psychologist and a statement read out to the sentencing court, the appellant denied having a sexual interest in males or male children.  The sentencing judge found that there was a high risk of re-offending.

Held (the Court): granting permission to appeal but dismissing the appeal:

1.Whilst the sentence is a heavy one, it did not exceed the limits of a sound exercise of sentencing discretion.

2.The appellant disregarded his professional duties and responsibilities as an educator.  He engaged in an egregious breach of the trust and confidence reposed in him by the school and the broader community.  His offending was brazen, persistent and predatory.  It was necessary for the sentencing court to protect the safety of the community, and mark its disapproval of serious child sexual abuse offending undertaken by a teacher toward his students. 

3.It cannot be said that the sentence is unreasonable or unjust. 

4.Observations made about the s 50(1) offending and the increasingly blurred significance of any demarcation between physical contact offending and communication offending against children; the s 63B(3)(b) offending and the dangers associated with making assumptions about the scope for harm…