Director of Public Prosecutions v Shasha (No 2)

[2025] ACTSC 86

SUPREME COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY

Case Title:

DPP v Shasha (No 2)

Citation: 

[2025] ACTSC 86

Hearing Date: 

4 February 2025

Decision Date: 

14 March 2025

Before:

Burns AJ

Decision: 

See [86]

Catchwords: 

CRIMINAL LAW – JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Judgment and Punishment – Sentence –  determining the circumstances of offending – objective seriousness of each charge – findings of fact must be consistent with the verdicts returned by the jury – scale of penalties available – convictions recorded – offender’s honest belief the victim was 16 years old inadequately formulated – present case falls well outside the usual case of child sexual offending

Parties: 

Director of Public Prosecutions ( Crown)

Petra Shasha ( Offender)

Legislation Cited:

Representation: 

Crimes (Sentence Administration) Act 2005 (ACT) s 42

Counsel

E Beljic ( Crown)

S Pararajasingham ( Offender)

Solicitors

ACT Director of Public Prosecutions

Kamy Saeedi Lawyers ( Offender)

File Numbers:

SCC 194 of 2023

BURNS AJ:

Introduction

1․Petra Shasha, on 16 September 2024, you were arraigned on an indictment containing seven Counts. You entered pleas of not guilty to each of the charges and your trial proceeded before a jury. On 24 September 2024, I directed a verdict of acquittal be entered on Count 7 (SCCAN2024/173).

2․On 27 September 2024, the jury returned verdicts of guilty on the following charges: 

(a)Count 1 (CC2023/8083), a charge that between 2 November 2020 and 19 October 2021 you, being an adult, engaged in a relationship with a child, namely [the victim], that involved more than one sexual act. This offence carries a maximum term of imprisonment of 25 years.

(b)Count 2 (CC2023/8084), a charge that between 2 November 2020 and 19 October 2021 you, without reasonable excuse, engaged in conduct with a young person, namely [the victim], with the intention of making it more likely that the young person would commit or take part in, or watch someone else committing or taking part in, an act of a sexual nature. This offence carries a maximum term of imprisonment of seven years.

(c)Count 5 (CC2023/8086), a charge that between 2 November 2020 and 19 October 2021 you made pornographic material available to a young person, namely [the victim]. This was a course of conduct charge. This offence carries a maximum term of imprisonment of seven years.

(d)Count 6 (CC2022/1779), a charge that between 2 November 2020 and 19 October 2021, you committed an act of indecency in the presence of [the victim], being a person under 16 years of age. This offence carries a maximum term of imprisonment of 10 years.

3․The jury returned verdicts of not guilty to further charges:

(a)Count 3 (CC2022/2646), that between 2 November 2020 and 19 October 2021 without reasonable excuse, you encouraged a young person, namely [the victim], to commit or take part in or watch someone else committing or take part in an act of a sexual nature; and,

(b)Count 4 (SCCAN2023/371), a charge between 2 November 2020 and 19 October 2021, you committed an act of indecency on [the victim], being a person under 16 years of age.

4․It is now my responsibility to impose sentence upon you for the offences upon which the jury returned verdicts of guilty. It is my responsibility to determine the facts upon which you are to be sentenced. In the present case, fact finding has been complicated, as the prosecution case was based largely, but not exclusively, on the recollections of witnesses, particularly as to dates when events occurred. Adding further complication was the fact that the victim was lying to his friends and associates about having a sexual relationship with you well before any sort of relationship commenced.

5․The verdicts of guilty returned by the jury reflect the unanimous decision of the members of the jury that they were satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that each of the elements of Counts 1, 2, 5 and 6 were proven to the standard of beyond reasonable doubt. The verdicts, however, say nothing about the basis upon which each individual juror came to be satisfied that each of the elements of the charges were proven to that standard.

6․The jury were directed, as all juries are, that individual jurors may take a different view of the evidence or follow a different pathway to other jurors and come into a finding of guilt. All that the law requires is that the jury are unanimous in their verdict on each charge.

7․Whether the elements of the charge have been proven to the required standard is black and white. Either they have not, or they have. Determining the circumstances of which the offending occurred is different. In that process, there are often shades of grey which emerge from the evidence. It is important to acknowledge those shades of grey where they exist and where they are relevant when it comes to sentencing.

8․Parliament acknowledges, by setting a maximum penalty for an offence and not a single mandatory penalty, that there will be variations between the circumstances in which particular offences are committed and the circumstances of individual offenders, which will bear upon the sentence that is appropriate in any individual case.

9․Penalties for the offences of which you have been found guilty may range from a non‑conviction order to the maximum penalty of imprisonment prescribed by the statute. It is the obligation of this Court to determine where on this scale of penalties the present offences should be punished. In undertaking this responsibility, I must consider the objective seriousness of each charge which in turn requires me to make findings of fact.

10․Offences such as those of which you have been found guilty may be committed in an almost infinite number of ways. Determining the way in which an offence was committed, that is, what happened in the commission of the offence, will often be important in determining where on the scale of penalties available to the court a particular offence should be punished.

11․Any facts which I determine must be consistent with the verdicts returned by the jury. Any proposed fact that tends to make the offence more serious or calls for greater punishment must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt. On the other hand, any proposed fact that mitigates an offence need only be proven on the balance of probabilities.

12․For example, Count 1 involves an allegation of engaging in a relationship with the victim that involved more than one sexual act. It is obvious that the appropriate degree of punishment for such an offence will depend on the circumstances of the relationship and the number of sexual acts involved. A relationship created or pursued by an offender for the specific purpose of engaging in sexual activity with a child will call for greater punishment than one that was not initially created or pursued for that purpose, but which ultimately involved sexual activity.

13․Similarly, whether such an offence continues over a long or short period, and how many acts of a sexual nature occurred, and the type of sexual acts will usually be relevant to assessing the level at which the offence should be punished. I refer to these as mere examples of factual matters not determined by the jury verdicts, and which need to be determined before sentencing.

Background

14․I will now turn to the background of this matter and give my findings on factual issues. In doing so, in the light of uncertainty regarding dates which emerges from the oral evidence, I give considerable weight to independent evidence such as bank records.

15․On 2 November 2020, you commenced the placement as a pre-service teacher at St Edmund’s College in the Australian Capital Territory (ACT). This is a Catholic all-boys private school offering classes to students between Years 4 and 12. You undertook your placement at St Edmund’s between 2 November and the 20 November 2020.

16․At the time of your placement at St Edmund’s you were 24 years old and the victim was 15 years old and a student in Year 9. The victim had turned 15 in [redacted] 2020. You did not teach any classes in which the victim was a student during your time at St Edmund’s. You came to know the victim when he and a group of his friends sought you out while you were supervising students in lunch and recess breaks. At those times, you were always on duty with another teacher. The victim gave evidence that he and his friends would try to talk to you and “flirt” with you. While it may have been the victim's intention to flirt with you, there is no evidence that you encouraged his conduct or responded in a similar fashion at that time.

17․Indeed, the victim agreed in evidence that there were no conversations in which you offered him compliments or anything of that nature at that time. The victim agreed that you were friendly with many of the students during the short time that you were at St Edmund’s. A close friend of the victim told police that his observations of you and the victim were that your interactions were quite normal and that there was “nothing weird”. It was accepted by the victim that at no time while you were at St Edmund’s did either of you have each other's contact details.

18․It is clear beyond any doubt that the victim became intent on pursuing you and establishing a relationship of sorts with you during the time that you were at St Edmund’s. I am satisfied that it was he who sought you out and you did not seek him out while you were engaged as a pre-service teacher at the school.

19․The victim wanted to appear “cool” in front of his friends and wanted to be able to brag to his friends about his relationship with a mature woman. I am satisfied that the victim also wanted to be able to manipulate his young former girlfriend, “IA”, to be jealous of you based upon his supposed sexual experience with you. In other words, the victim, for his own reasons, wanted people to believe that you and he were in a sexual relationship at or around the time that you were at St Edmund’s and in the following months.

20․To that end, the victim began to spread lies about your relationship with him during, or shortly after, the time that you were at St Edmund’s. This included telling his associates, whom he was trying to impress, that you had been sharing nude pictures and other inappropriate images with him in late 2020. He also spread this allegation to IA.

21․This allegation came to the attention of the assistant principal of St Clare's College, a Catholic all-girls school adjacent to St Edmund’s, who passed it on to the deputy principal of St Edmund’s by email on 7 December 2020. The deputy principal of St Edmund’s spoke to you about this allegation and you denied it. I am satisfied that you were telling the truth at that time. I am satisfied that there was nothing inappropriate in your relationship with the victim in 2020.

22․In making this finding, I do not ignore the evidence of IA to the effect that it was her recollection that the victim first showed her a photograph of you naked from the waist up in late 2020, but I cannot be satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that this recollection is accurate. It is at odds with the evidence of both the victim and that of yourself. In addition, the informant, Senior Constable Frizzell, gave evidence that she had a conversation with IA on the 7  December 2021 along the following lines, and I quote:

She told me Petra was a student teacher at St Edmund’s College in October to November 2020, and while teaching [the victim] asked her for her Snapchat handle on the oval, which she gave. Petra sent him nude images which he still has on his phone and had shown people a few months ago. She described an image she had been shown to be of Petra posing in a mirror topless, wearing only a G string. IA reported the relationship between Petra and [the victim] escalated while she was teaching at St Edmund’s College. Petra was taking [the victim] to school, the shops and buying him things. Petra was giving head. They kissed. [The victim] told IA Petra was sucking his dick. Upon Petra leaving St Edmund’s College, the relationship continued. Petra had been visiting [the victim’s] house. She has an image sent by [the victim] of Petra standing in his bedroom. He later told her that he and Petra had sex at his house. He disclosed this to IA on multiple occasions.

23․There was nothing in this initial statement made by IA to the informant to the effect that the victim had shown her a partially naked photograph of you in late 2020. If anything, what IA said to the informant was the victim was showing people nude photographs of yourself a few months before she spoke to the informant in December 2021.

24․Many of the allegations made by IA in this initial conversation with the informant have now been demonstrated to be untrue. The evidence does not support the proposition that you provided the victim with your Snapchat on the oval while you were doing your placement at St Edmund’s. The evidence does not support the proposition that you provided nude images to the victim while you were at St Edmund’s. The evidence does not support the proposition that you engaged in oral intercourse with the victim, either while you were at St Edmund’s or at any time. The evidence does not support the allegation that you engaged in sexual activity with the victim in his bedroom.

25․It may well be that IA was provided with untrue or unreliable information about these events by the victim or others. But there are difficulties with accepting to the standard of beyond reasonable doubt the evidence of IA that the victim showed her a semi-naked photograph of yourself in late 2020.

26․I will digress at this point to observe that the prosecutor submitted that I should in some areas discount the evidence of the victim because he was said to be favourable to you. I accept that caution is appropriate in assessing the evidence of the victim, but it is simplistic to assert that the need for caution arises simply because he may be favourable to you. The truth is rather more nuanced.

27․It is undoubted that the victim had a strong feeling of attachment to you, at least towards the end of your interactions. It is also apparent that when the truth of your interactions became known to police and his family, the victim displayed strong feelings of guilt regarding his conduct and the effect that the revelation of his interactions with you may have upon you and your future. To put it simply, he blamed himself.

28․I do not suggest that he should have done so, but it is important to acknowledge the reality of his feelings of guilt. Feelings of guilt may provoke a desire in a person, particularly a young person, to distance themselves from conduct which they feel was wrong or perceived by others to be wrong. As I said, I do not suggest that such feelings are appropriate in this case, but I cannot ignore the fact that the victim has displayed at times both partiality towards you and strong feelings of guilt about his conduct.

29․I do not pretend that I am able to determine which of these feelings may have operated on the victim at any particular point in the process of him being interviewed by police and giving evidence in this Court. That would be mere speculation. Ultimately, I must do the best I can, bearing in mind the standard of proof.

30․In his evidence, the victim admitted to lying to his friends about having sexual activity with you. He also admitted to lying to IA about having sex with you and deliberately misleading her about the nature of his relationship with you in order to provoke feelings of jealousy in IA. He admitted that he had lied to people towards the end of 2020 about having received nude or inappropriate images from him.

31․I am satisfied that the truth is that you had no physical contact with the victim after you left St Edmund’s until you happened to meet him in February 2021 at playing fields in Calwell where he was playing [redacted] and you were playing netball. The victim may have tried to contact you over social media prior to that date, but you ignored him. It was only after the chance meeting at the playing fields in February 2021 that you began communicating with the victim on social media.

32․There was no dispute at your trial that the victim was still only 15 years old in February 2021. He did not turn 16 until [redacted] that year. What was in dispute was your knowledge of the victim's age at the relevant period from February 2021 onwards. In considering that issue, it is necessary to go back to your interactions with the victim in November 2020 at St Edmund’s.

33․In an interview with police, the victim said that in one of the conversations that he had with you while you were on placement at St Edmund’s, he told you that he was 16 years old. That statement to you, if it was made, was a lie. He was only 15. There was no evidence from the victim that you were the person who raised the topic of his age in that conversation, and on the basis of his motivation in seeking to engage you in conversation at that time, it is probable that if such a conversation occurred, it was the victim who raised the topic. In any event, your evidence differed from that of the victim regarding conversations that you had with him about his age, and I prefer your account of those matters to that of the victim.

34․The evidence of the victim was frequently vague and appeared to be often guesswork and reconstruction. It is also very clear throughout the period of these events the victim was careful to protect himself. It is entirely possible that the motivation of protecting himself from disapproval or criticism by family or others may have influenced his evidence generally.

35․The victim testified that he contacted you on Instagram shortly after you finished your placement at St Edmund’s and you responded within a few hours. I do not accept that to be the case. I accept on the balance of probabilities there was no real contact between yourself and the victim from the end of your placement at St Edmund’s until the chance meeting at the Calwell playing fields.

36․I do not accept the victim's evidence that you gave him a hug when you met him at the Calwell playing fields. This seems very unlikely since the victim's father was nearby and the victim said he was trying to keep his relationship with you a secret from his family.

37․I am satisfied that it was only in the communications which occurred on social media after you met at Calwell that there was any conversation about the victim's age. I accept that around mid-March 2021, the victim contacted you with a request that you assist him on a school assignment. At that point you asked him what grade he was in, to assist you in assisting him with the assignment. The victim told you that he was in Year 10, that it was a Year 10 assignment and that he was 16, turning 17 years old. He told you that he had repeated a year. Clearly, the reason that he lied to you about his age was to encourage you into continuing to communicate with him on social media.

38․It was during this telephone call that the victim told you that he was [redacted]. You also became aware of the fact around this time that the victim occasionally smoked cannabis and consumed alcohol. On occasion he would contact you while he was intoxicated and ask you to provide him with lifts.

39․I accept on the balance of probabilities that you believed at that time the victim was 16 years old. You had not taught the victim at St Edmund’s, so there is no evidence that you were on notice of his age or probable age by reason of knowledge of the year he was at in St Edmund’s. The victim mixed not only with children his own age during recesses at St Edmund’s, but also with older children in games of touch football and the like. The victim was apparently a talented football player and appears to have been socially accepted by older students.

40․I accept that the victim was assertive and persistent in his requests for sexual photographs and images from you, as well as his request for you to give him lifts. He also engaged in conduct such as slapping your buttocks without warning or seeking permission, which suggested a confidence in his relationship with you, belying his true age of 15. All of those circumstances are consistent with you having a belief that the victim was 16 years old.

41․Perhaps more importantly, the evidence establishes that you were prepared to be seen in public with the victim on occasion. There was undoubtedly an element of secrecy around your relationship with the victim. That is explained by the age difference between the two of you and your then occupation. It may not have been illegal for a 24 year old teacher to have a relationship with a 16 year old child, but many in the community would consider such a relationship to be inappropriate or even morally wrong because of the age difference and your then occupation. The evidence establishes, however, there were occasions when the two of you went to shopping malls and the like together. There was also unchallenged evidence that you regularly gave the victim a lift to school and dropped him at the school gates.

42․I have described the victim's conduct as, on occasion, deceitful and manipulative. In doing so, it is not my intention to place the blame for these offences on the victim. He was only 15 years old and was an immature teenager. It was your responsibility as an adult to take reasonable steps to satisfy yourself that your belief that he was 16 years old was correct. The jury's verdicts demonstrate that your belief was not based on reasonable grounds. For that failing to take reasonable steps to confirm your belief that the victim was 16, you are to be punished.

43․It is, however, necessary to consider the conduct of the victim regarding these events and how his conduct influenced your conduct to properly understand why I am satisfied that you held a genuine belief in early 2021 that the victim was 16 years old, to determine your moral culpability for these offences and to rebut the prosecution’s assertion that your conduct towards the victim could properly be described as predatory. The victim's conduct was calculated to make you believe that he possessed a level of confidence and was engaged in activities consistent with his asserted age of 16 years.

44․In determining on the balance of probabilities that you held a genuine belief that the victim was 16 years old, I also consider the evidence of Dr Richard Furst, a forensic psychiatrist. Dr Furst provided a report dated 16 December 2024 and was cross‑examined by the prosecutor. Dr Furst testified that you have a history of low self‑esteem and intermittent anxiety. More importantly, he noted a history of difficulty in you asserting yourself in relationships, which would help to explain your failure to critically assess or challenge statements made to you by the victim.

45․The prosecutor asserted that I should find that you started giving lifts to the victim in 2020 based upon the evidence of “MM”, a friend of the victim and a fellow student at St Edmund’s. It is true that in evidence in chief, MM stated that he thought it would have been about the end of Year 9 that he first got a lift to school from you with the victim. This would have been towards the end of 2020. This submission however by the prosecutor ignores the cross-examination of MM.

46․In cross‑examination, MM agreed that he told police in an interview in March 2022 that he was unsure if you were teaching at St Edmund’s in 2020 or 2021. He said in his evidence that he knew that you worked there in 2020 but he was not sure about 2021. It was then pointed out to him that he had told police in March 2022 that he did not remember when you started teaching at the school and he agreed that he said that to police. It is clear that MM’s recollection of when you worked at the school is unreliable.

47․Perhaps more importantly, MM agreed that he told police in March 2022 that his recollection was that you started giving lifts to school to him after you had left St Edmund’s. He agreed that in making his statement to police in March 2022, all that he could say was that you have started giving lifts to the victim at some time after you had left St Edmund’s.

48․The prosecutor also referred to the evidence in chief interview conducted with the victim's younger brother in which he said that you started giving lifts to the victim about the middle of, or three weeks into Term 4. Curiously, the submission again ignores the cross‑examination of that witness. In cross-examination, the witness agreed that in his evidence in chief interview, his recollection was that you started at St Edmund’s in Term 3. The witness subsequently accepted that this was wrong. The witness also accepted that it was possible that he was mistaken when he said that you gave lifts to the victim while you were working at the school.

49․I do not accept that the prosecution evidence reliably permits me to find that you started giving lifts to the victim and his friends in late 2020 or at any time before your chance meeting with the victim at the Calwell playing fields.

50․It is worthwhile noting that the evidence of MM was that the victim would arrange for you to give the victim and his friends lifts. When he was in the car with you and the victim, MM said the conversations were just about normal stuff. The victim told MM that when the victim went out with you, the two of you would just hang out together, “get lunch or something” like that, “like, hanging out with a friend”.

51․There can be no doubt that by 24 February 2021, you had commenced providing money to the victim. On that date there is evidence of a bank transfer from you to the victim in the sum of $50.00 with a description, ‘Rebel Sport T shirt’ and another bank transfer in the amount of $5.00 from you to the victim. There was, however, also a bank transfer from the victim to you on the same date in the amount of $30.00. Similarly, on the 22 March 2021, the victim transferred $50.00 from his account to your account.

52․From 23 May 2021 onwards, there were multiple transfers of money from your bank account to that of the victim, these were all transfers of relatively small amounts of money. Less frequently there were transfers of small sums of money from the victim’s account to your account. This pattern of transfers to and from your respective accounts continued until at least February 2022, well after the victim had turned 16.

53․There was also clear and undisputed evidence that from February 2021 onwards you would provide the victim with lifts in your car. Frequently this occurred at the request of the victim. At his request, you would also provide transport for his friends. You also purchased items of clothing for the victim on occasion.

54․What is conspicuously absent from the evidence is any suggestion of you making sexual demands of the victim during the period of the relationship, even after the victim turned 16. The provision of sexual images and videos by you to the victim was always at the request of the victim. It may well be, as the prosecutor submitted, that there were a large number of images provided by you (although the evidence does not permit an exact finding) but your moral culpability must be assessed against the background that you believed the victim to be 16 years old and that it was the victim, who had deliberately set out to deceive you into believing that he was 16, who requested you to provide those images.

55․In her written submissions, the prosecutor was at pains to suggest that this was a typical example of what has been called “grooming”. The prosecutor referred to the report of the Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Abuse, to state that, quote:

[T]he essential facet of this type of relationship is the establishment of an emotional connection designed to build trust to gain access to the victim.

Clearly enough, in true cases of grooming, the purpose of gaining access to the victim is to permit the offender to engage in sexual activity with a victim who is known to be a child. That is far removed from the present case.

56․There are some superficial similarities between the relationship which existed between you and the victim and what might be referred to as conduct typical of grooming. For example, the giving of gifts by an offender to a victim frequently occurs in typical cases of grooming. The overriding purpose of such conduct by a typical grooming offender, however, is to encourage or force a person the offender knows to be a child into engaging in sexual activity with the offender. As I have said, that is far removed from the present case.

57․In advancing her submission that this was a typical case of grooming, the prosecutor also referred to the evidence of IA regarding what the victim said to her about his relationship with you. At various times, the victim told her that he was just using you to get free lifts and gifts, that he was feeling a bit weird about the relationship, that he felt like he owed you, and ultimately that he was in love with you. In my opinion, these statements by the victim to IA must be approached with caution. As IA herself observed, the victim was in the habit of saying untrue and often contradictory things to her about his relationship with you, depending upon how his relationship with IA was at the time.

58․I received victim impact statements from the victim, his mother, his father, and his brother. Clearly, these events, the publicity surrounding the events and your charging, and participation by the victim and the prosecution process has taken a heavy toll on the victim and his family. It makes little difference in the present circumstances whether the principal detrimental effects to the victim were the result of your conduct or of other people becoming aware of the circumstances of your relationship.

59․I will now consider each of the charges.

Count 1

60․As I have already noted, this is a charge that between 2 November 2020 and 19 October 2021, you being an adult, engaged in a sexual relationship with a child, namely, [the victim], that involved more than one sexual act. I am satisfied on the balance of probabilities, that the relationship commenced in February 2021. I am unable to find with any degree of certainty when, after the relationship began, you commenced sending sexualized images of yourself to the victim, nor am I able to determine with any degree of certainty how many images were provided by you to the victim. I do accept however, such images were provided frequently. The acts that the prosecution relied upon to establish that more than one “sexual act” occurred during this relationship included the acts in Counts 5 and 6.

61․The jury were directed that in determining whether a relationship existed between you and the victim during the charged period, they were entitled to look beyond the evidence of overtly sexual conduct and consider what may be referred to as apparently innocuous conduct. This included providing the victim with lifts and loaning him or giving him money and gifts. As the prosecutor correctly pointed out, in many cases such conduct may be part of a deliberate strategy of entrapping a child into a sexual relationship. The jury's verdict on Count 1, however, says nothing about your motive for engaging in this conduct, as that was not an element of the offence.

62․As I have already said, I am satisfied that your motive for engaging in the charged conduct was not to attract a child into a sexual relationship. You responded to the requests of the victim for sexual material in the belief that he was 16 years old. The victim did not simply acquiesce in the formation of the relationship and the sexual acts, as submitted by the prosecutor. He was the moving party. There was initial reluctance on your part both in commencing communications with the victim and acceding to his requests that you provide him with sexual images, but the victim persevered.

63․Looking simply at the conduct involved in Count 1 in assessing the objective seriousness of the offence, I take into account:

(a)the relationship for the purpose of the charge, commenced in February 2021, and expired on the victim's 16^th birthday in [redacted] 2021.

(b)The victim at that time was 15 years old.

(c)You were around 24 or 25 years old.

(d)The relationship involved no coercive conduct, such as threats.

(e)The purpose of the conduct was to accede to the request of the victim for sexual images.

(f)There was no physical contact of a sexual nature between you and the victim.

(g)Two sexual acts, being those forming the basis of Counts 5 and 6, could be proven beyond reasonable doubt, but against the background of an unspecified number of similar acts.

(h)The nature of the sexual images provided to the victim ranged from images of yourself nude or semi-clothed to those of you engaging in explicit penetrative sexual acts.

64․Looking only at the objective circumstances of the offences, I would assess the offence as in the lower range of such offences.

65․In separately assessing your moral culpability for this offence, I take into account:

(a)Your honest belief that the victim was 16 years old. If, as you believe, the victim had been 16, all your actions would have been lawful.

(b)It is also necessary to take into account the fact that your basis for you formulating that belief was inadequate and reveals neglect on your part in simply accepting the assertions of the victim. In assessing the effect of this circumstance, I take into account the evidence of Dr Furst to which I have referred.

66․I accept that your belief that the victim was 16 years old reduces somewhat your moral culpability, as does the fact that in part, your belief was based on the assertions of the victim. But balanced against that is the inadequacy of the basis for your belief.

Count 2

67․This is a charge that between the same dates, you, without reasonable excuse, engaged in conduct with a young person namely, [the victim] with the intention of making it more likely that the young person would commit or take part in, or watch someone else committing or taking part in an act of a sexual nature.

68․The prosecution accepted that there is a significant overlap between the conduct which formed the basis of Count 1 and the conduct forming the basis of this charge. Indeed, there was no conduct relied upon by the prosecution to establish this charge that was not also relied upon to establish the offence in Count 1.

69․I reiterate what I said regarding the circumstances regarding surrounding Count 1. I am satisfied that this offence was committed by you providing the victim with the sexual images of yourself to which I have referred. In other words, you engaged in that conduct with the intention that the victim would watch you committing an act of a sexual nature. I make the same findings on objective seriousness and moral culpability for this charge as I made for Count 1.

Count 5

70․This is a charge that between the same dates you made pornographic material available to a young person, namely [the victim]. This was a course of conduct charge. The pornographic material which you made available to the victim is the same material that was referred to as part of the evidence relevant to Counts 1 and 2. I reiterate what I said regarding the circumstances surrounding those charges and make the same findings on objective seriousness and moral culpability for this charge as I made for those charges.

Count 6

71․This is a charge that between the same dates, you committed an act of indecency in the presence of [the victim], being a person under 16 years of age. The act involved in this charge was you permitting the victim to be in a change room with you while you were only wearing G string on the lower half of your body. The jury clearly did not accept your explanation that that the victim had entered the change room without your consent. I reiterate what I said regarding the circumstances surrounding the other charges and I make the same findings on objective seriousness and moral culpability for this charge that I made on those other charges.

Subjective features

72․You are currently 29 years old. A pre-sentence report prepared for sentencing on the present charges states that you had a strict upbringing influenced by your family's Middle Eastern cultural background. You apparently had a stable upbringing and attended private schooling. You told the author of the report that you had difficulty fulfilling your parents’ high expectations. Your family continues to support you, but they have expressed negative opinions of your offending behaviour. Your family standing within their cultural community has declined due to these offences.

73․You have only had one serious relationship from when you were 20 until 26 years of age. You describe the relationship as positive initially, but your family did not approve of your relationship. Your ex-partner became resentful and the relationship became toxic, with your ex-partner becoming physically and emotionally abusive towards you. [Redacted].

74․As at the date of the preparation of the pre-sentence report, you are continuing to reside with your mother and younger brother in the family home. You have never resided elsewhere and you are happy with that relationship.

75․You completed Year 12 and went on to complete a Bachelor of Secondary Teaching, a Bachelor of Business Administration in International Studies, and a Bachelor of Arts. As a result of you being charged with these offences, you lost your employment as a teacher and it is highly unlikely that you will be able to resume that career. You subsequently obtained employment within a firm of accountants. That employment was terminated when you were convicted of these offences. You have subsequently found full-time employment in a bookkeeping firm. You are financially secure. You have been subject to vilifications and threats online since the order prohibiting publication of your name was lifted.

76․You have prosocial friends and associates who continue to provide you with support. You do not have any problems regarding alcohol or illicit drug use.

77․The author of the pre-sentence report stated you are a 29 year old woman with no prior criminal history. You have been assessed as a low risk of general reoffending. Your only current risk factors include poor mental health following a traumatic relationship and [redacted] and your current offences. Your protective factors include your stable accommodation and employment, prosocial support from family, friends and colleagues, prosocial leisure activities, and limited alcohol and drug use history.

78․The report provided by Dr Furst notes that you reported [redacted]. In addition, you were the victim of apparent manipulation, threats, verbal abuse, and physical abuse during your previous relationship with your ex-partner.

79․You have a history of intermittent anxiety and low self-esteem, with these problems dating back to your childhood or early teens. You told Dr Furst that you had a tendency to acquiesce when sexual acts or things of a sexual nature are requested of you, and Dr Furst stated that it is likely that this tendency stems from maladaptive coping as a consequence of [redacted]. Dr Furst stated that your low self-esteem and difficulty asserting yourself in relationships or interpersonal interactions probably also contributed to your apparent tendency to acquiesce in the unwanted sexual requests of others.

80․I also received an Intensive Correction Order Assessment Report. Much of the background information within that report mirrors the contents of the pre-sentence report. The assessment report states that if you are to be sentenced to a period of supervision, ACT Corrective Services will complete appropriate referrals for an offence specific treatment program and other programs identified to reduce your risk of reoffending. You were assessed as suitable for an intensive correction order and you have signed an undertaking to comply with all of the obligations of such an Order.

81․I was provided with a large number of references provided by your extended family and associates. I will not recite the contents of these references in full. All of them speak of your generosity and your willingness to help others without expectation of reward. Clearly, the authors of these references consider the present offences to be out of character for you.

82․I am satisfied that there is little, if any, prospect of you reoffending in the future. Your prospects of rehabilitation are good.

83․Punishment, deterrence, and protection of the community are generally predominant sentencing considerations regarding child sex offences. In the present case, bearing in mind your belief that at the time you engaged in this conduct the victim was 16 years old and your conduct was therefore legal, the importance of punishment and deterrence are reduced, although not entirely eliminated. It is important that those who propose engaging in sexual activity with people who are apparently of or around the age of legal consent be aware that it is incumbent on them to ensure that any belief they hold about the age of the other person is accurate or at least based upon solid grounds. To that extent, general deterrence and punishment are still relevant sentencing considerations in the present case. Bearing in mind all of the circumstances, I do not consider personal deterrence to be a significant sentencing consideration in this case.

84․In most cases of sexual offending against children, a term of full time imprisonment is appropriate. I have attempted, in the course of these sentencing remarks, to explain why the present case falls well outside the usual case of child sexual offending. I am satisfied that the terms of imprisonment to be served by way of an intensive correction order will be sufficient to satisfy the requirements of sentencing on Counts 1, 2 and 5. In my opinion, the offence in Count 6 does not justify the imposition of a term of imprisonment.

85․Very substantial concurrency in sentences is justified in this case. Much of the conduct upon which Counts 1, 2 and 5 were based were common to each charge. I note that you have spent two days in pre-sentence custody.

Orders

86․For the above reasons, I make the following orders:

(1)On Count 1 (CC2023/8083), I record a conviction and Petra Shasha is sentenced to 1 year 8 months imprisonment commencing 14 March 2025 and expiring 13 November 2026.

(2)On Count 2 (CC2023/8084), I record a conviction and Petra Shasha is sentenced to 12 months imprisonment commencing 14 January 2026 and expiring 13 January 2027.

(3)On Count 5 (CC2023/8086), I record a conviction and Petra Shasha is sentenced to 12 months imprisonment commencing 14 February 2026 and expiring 13 February 2027.

(4)The total term of imprisonment I have imposed on Counts 1, 2 and 5 is 1 year 11 months commencing 14 March 2025 and expiring 13 February 2027. I order that these sentences be served by way of Intensive Correction Orders including the core conditions mentioned in s 42 of the Crimes (Sentence Administration) Act 2005 (ACT). Those orders will also include conditions requiring Petra Shasha to complete offence specific treatment programs and engage in trauma informed counselling as directed by officers of ACT Corrective Services.

(5)On Count 6 (CC2022/1779), I record a conviction and taking into account the 2 days spent in pre-sentence custody, Petra Shasha is fined $1000.00. I will allow 28 days to pay.

I certify that the preceding eighty-six [86] numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Sentence of his Honour Acting Justice Burns.

Associate:

Date: