The Queen v Tulloch

The case of *The Queen v Tulloch* involved a Crown appeal against a sentence imposed on the respondent, a female offender, for maintaining a sexual relationship with a male child under the age of 16. The appeal concerned the adequacy of punishment for such offences, particularly when committed by female adults against male children, and aimed to uphold appropriate standards of punishment.

The legal issues before the court were whether the original sentence was manifestly inadequate and, more broadly, whether there should be any distinction in sentencing between male and female offenders in cases of sexual offences against children. The court was required to consider whether the offender's gender and the victim's gender were relevant distinguishing features in sentencing, and whether the victim's consent, or lack thereof, could be considered a mitigating factor in this context.

The Full Court of the Supreme Court of South Australia held that there is no legal basis for differentiating sentencing for sexual offences based on the gender of the offender or the victim. The court emphasised that the law exists to protect children from sexual relationships, regardless of the genders involved. It reasoned that the respondent's adverse life circumstances and the victim's age did not justify a lenient sentence, and that consent was not a mitigating factor in offences involving a child under the age of 16. The appeal was allowed, and the matter was remitted for re-sentencing.