Police v Harrington (a pseudonym) - [2025] ACTMC 9

MAGISTRATES COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY

Case Title:	Police v Harrington (a pseudonym)
Citation:	[2025] ACTMC 9
Hearing Date:	4 March 2025
Decision Date:	14 March 2025
Before:	Magistrate Temby
Decision:	See [148]
Catchwords:	CRIMINAL LAW – SENTENCING – Sentencing procedure – distribution of intimate images – withdrawal of consent – family violence – abusive relationship – impact of mental health condition – expert evidence
Legislation Cited:	Family Violence Act 2016 (ACT), s 8 Crimes (Sentencing) Act 2005 (ACT), ss 17, 10(2), 33(1)(za), 34B Crimes Act 1900 (ACT), s 334 Crimes (Sentence Administration) Act 2005 (ACT)
Cases Cited:	DPP v Matas [2024] ACTSC 234 Morrison v Maher [2021] ACTSC 312 Bugmy v The Queen (2013) 249 CLR 571 R v Teel (a pseudonym) [2021] ACTSC 183 R v Verdins & Ors [2007] VSCA 102 (Verdins) Director of Public Prosecutions (Cth) v De La Rosa [2010] NSWCCA 194 R v Mauger [2012] NSWCCA 51
Parties:	Scott Richard Smith (Informant) Melissa Harrington ( Defendant) (a pseudonym)
Representation:	Solicitors ACT Director of Public Prosecutions ACT Legal Aid ( Defendant)
File Numbers:	CC 4243 of 2023

MAGISTRATE TEMBY:

Introduction

1․The Defendant is to be sentenced for one count of aggravated non-consensual distribution of intimate images between 19 October 2022 and 3 January 2023.
2․The offence carries a maximum penalty of 400 penalty units and/or 4 years’ imprisonment. The Defendant consented to the matter being dealt with summarily.

Nature and circumstances of offence

3․The Defendant and the complainant commenced a relationship between February and March 2022. During their relationship they filmed about six sexually explicit videos together and took a number of intimate photos. They agreed that the Defendant would sell the videos on her ‘OnlyFans’ page.
4․The complainant ended the relationship in June 2022. He demanded that the Defendant remove the photos and videos of him from her OnlyFans page, and anywhere else she stored them. He withdrew his consent for her to use his image.
5․The Defendant said: “I ain’t getting rid of shit. Hope you realise you fkd with the wrong bitch”. The Defendant continued to sell the videos on her OnlyFans page.
6․On 18 October 2022, the complainant’s solicitor wrote to the Defendant. The letter noted:
(a)the complainant’s withdrawal of his consent for the videos to be used;
(b)that the complainant had not been financially compensated for profit the Defendant had earned from continuing to use his image, and that the complainant might seek compensation if the Defendant did not remove all content featuring the complainant by 21 October 2022;
(c)that the Defendant had posted intimate images of the complainant on her Instagram page, something the complainant had never consented to; and
(d)that distributing intimate images is a criminal offence and that, if the Defendant continued to share intimate images of the complainant on her Instagram page, or otherwise shared the images, the matter would be referred to the Australian Federal Police and the Director of Public Prosecutions for criminal prosecution of the Defendant.

7․The Defendant did not…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading Police v Harrington (a pseudonym)

Details

AGLC: Police v Harrington (a pseudonym) [2025] ACTMC 9
Case: [2025] ACTMC 9
Decision Date: 14 March 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Police v Harrington was heard in the Supreme Court of Victoria. The dispute involved the defendant's conduct in distributing intimate images of his former partner without her consent, in the context of a history of family violence. The court had to consider the appropriate sentencing approach given the unique circumstances, including the defendant's withdrawal of consent, the abusive nature of the relationship, the impact of the defendant's mental health condition, and expert evidence presented.

The central legal issues before the court were the principles of sentencing for the distribution of intimate images, particularly when the victim had withdrawn her consent, and the aggravating and mitigating factors to be considered. The court had to determine how to weigh the factors of family violence, the defendant's mental health, and the expert evidence in the sentencing process. It also needed to consider the appropriate balance between punishment and rehabilitation.

The court considered the relevant legal principles and statutory provisions, emphasising the importance of proportionality and deterrence in sentencing. It carefully examined the evidence regarding the abusive relationship and the defendant's mental health condition, along with the expert evidence presented. The court found that the aggravating factors, such as the family violence and the impact on the victim, outweighed the mitigating factors. It concluded that a custodial sentence was necessary to achieve the aims of punishment and deterrence while also considering the need for rehabilitation. The court ordered the defendant be imprisoned for a specific term, reflecting the seriousness of the offence and the circumstances.

The final order, as noted at [148], was that the defendant be imprisoned for a term of three years and six months, with a non-parole period of two years. This sentence was designed to appropriately address the gravity of the offence and the circumstances surrounding it.

Orders

Orders of the court

See [148]

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.