STATE OF TASMANIA v ATHOL KEITH BATES-WILLIE 21 NOVEMBER 2025
COMMENTS ON PASSING SENTENCE ESTCOURT J
The defendant, Athol Keith Bates Willie, now aged 71 years, has been found guilty by a jury of all 14 counts on an indictment against him. The crimes were all committed against male students whom the defendant taught when he was a schoolteacher at Rosetta and Kingston High Schools and Rosny College between 1979 and 2006. They are as follows:
First Count
PERSISTENT SEXUAL ABUSE OF A CHILD – Contrary to Section 125A of the Criminal Code in that between on or about the 1st day of January 1979, and on or about the 31st day of December 1979, he maintained a sexual relationship with a child, namely NPCS, a child born on the 22nd day of September 1963.
Second Count
INDECENT ASSAULT – Contrary to Section 127(1) of the Criminal Code in that at Hobart in Tasmania between on or about the 1st day of December 1981, and on or about the 31st day of March 1982, he unlawfully and indecently assaulted STM by touching his penis.
Third Count
INDECENT ASSAULT in that at Hobart in Tasmania between on or about the 1st day of January 1983, and on or about the 31st day of December 1983, unlawfully and indecently assaulted STM by touching his penis and penetrating his anus.
Fourth Count
INDECENT ASSAULT in that at Hobart in Tasmania between on or about the 1st day of January 1983, and on or about the 31st day of December 1983, on an occasion subsequent to count three above, he unlawfully and indecently assaulted STM by touching his penis and penetrating his anus.
Fifth Count
INDECENT ASSAULT in that at Hobart in Tasmania between on or about the 1st day of January 1983, and on or about the 31st day of December 1983, on an occasion subsequent to count four above, he unlawfully and indecently assaulted STM by touching his penis and penetrating his anus.
Sixth Count
INDECENT ASSAULT in that at Hobart in Tasmania between on or about the 1st day of June 1984, and on or about the 31st day of December 1984, he unlawfully and indecently assaulted PAW by touching his buttocks and scrotum.
Seventh Count
PERSISTENT SEXUAL ABUSE OF A CHILD in that at Hobart in Tasmania between on or about the 1st day of January 1984, and the 19th day of December 1986, he maintained a sexual relationship with a child, namely SP, a child born on the 19th day of December 1969.
Eighth Count
PERSISTENT SEXUAL ABUSE OF A CHILD in that at Hobart in Tasmania between on or about the 1st day of January 1984, and the 31st day of December 1987, he maintained a sexual relationship with a child, namely GH, a child born on the 7th day of February 1971.
Ninth Count
PERSISTENT SEXUAL ABUSE OF A CHILD in that at Hobart in Tasmania between on or about the 1st day of January 1989, and the 31st day of December 1990, he maintained a sexual relationship with TDB, a child born on the 20th day of December 1977.
Tenth Count
RAPE – Contrary to Section 185(1) of the Criminal Code in that at Hobart in Tasmania between on or about the 1st day of November 1996, and the 1st day of December 1996, he had oral sexual intercourse with JADH without his consent.
Eleventh Count
INDECENT ASSAULT in that at Hobart in Tasmania between on or about the 1st day of January 2001, and the 1st day of December 2001, he unlawfully and indecently assaulted TM by touching his penis.
Twelfth Count
INDECENT ASSAULT in that at Hobart in Tasmania between on or about the 1st day of January 2001, and the 1st day of June 2002, he unlawfully and indecently assaulted TM by touching his anus and testicles.
Thirteenth Count
STATEMENT OF CRIME
AGGRAVATED SEXUAL ASSAULT – Contrary to Section 127A of the Criminal Code in that at Hobart in Tasmania between on or about the 1st day of January 2002, and the 1st day of December 2004, he unlawfully and indecently assaulted LL by penetrating his anus with his finger.
Fourteenth Count
STATEMENT OF CRIME
INDECENT ASSAULT in that at Hobart in Tasmania between on or about the 1st day of January 2001, and the 31st day of December 2006, unlawfully and indecently assaulted AJWP by touching his penis.
The particulars of the unlawful sexual acts relied upon by the State in respect of Counts 1, 7, 8 and 9 are as follows:
NPCS
- Indecent Assault
In the sound room/control room in the music department at the Rosetta High School, during the fitting of a costume, namely a “fat suit”, the accused touched NPCS down his legs, on his buttocks, between the buttocks, the scrotum, the anus and put a finger in his anus.
- Indecent Assault
In the accused’s car the accused touched NPCS’s penis and placed NPCS’s penis in his mouth.
- Indecent Assault
In the dark room at Rosetta High School. The accused pressed his erect penis against NPCS’s back.
- Indecent Assault
In the dark room at Rosetta High School. While NPCS had his hands in developing fluid the accused pushed his penis/groin against him. He then placed his penis in NPCS’s mouth.
- Indecent Assault
In the dark room at Rosetta High School. While NPCS had his hands in the developing fluid the accused pushed his penis/groin area against him. He then ejaculated.
SP
- Indecent Assault
In 1984, during a shower at the accused’s home, the accused touched SP on the penis. After the shower, the accused touched SP on the penis and testicles while he was on a bed.
- Indecent Assault
In 1984, in a room with costumes on racks, the accused touched SP on the penis and testicles.
- Indecent Assault
In 1986, during the production of Cowardy Custard, the accused fitted SP into a small bathing costume. While fitting the costume, the accused touched SP on the penis and testicles.
- Indecent Assault
In 1986, on the Abel Tasman ferry, the accused touched SP on the penis and testicles.
- Indecent Assault
In 1986, whilst in Renmark in South Australia, the accused touched SP on the penis whilst having a spa.
GH
- Indecent Assault
During a relaxation/meditation exercise during class, while GH was laying on the floor, the accused touched him on the penis.
- Indecent Assault
During a demonstration in class while GH was on the floor, the accused put his hands inside GH’s pockets and touched him on the penis.
- Indecent Assault
On a stairwell at school in either grade eight or grade nine, the accused touched GH on the penis.
- Indecent Assault
At the bottom of a stairwell at school, on a different occasion to occasion 3 above, the accused touched GH on the penis.
TB
- Indecent Assault
On the floor in class during a relaxation/meditation exercise, the accused touched TB on the penis.
- Indecent Assault
In class whilst getting into a hessian sack, the accused touched TB on the penis.
- Indecent Assault
In a cupboard at school, the accused touched TB’s anus and penetrated his anus.
- Indecent Assault
In the cupboard at school, the accused touched TB’s penis.
The jury needed only to be satisfied in respect of the counts of persistent sexual abuse of a child that the defendant committed at least three of the listed unlawful acts before it was open to find the accused guilty of the crime, and individual jurors did not need to be satisfied that they were the same three acts.
Children and young people who are victims of such offences are frequently unable to give particulars of each and every sexual act during a period of prolonged offending. The State has listed the specific sexual acts they are able to identify, but defendants may be sentenced where appropriate, as here, on the basis that specific acts may be part of a course of conduct involving other, often, as in some of the present cases, many other, unspecified acts.
It falls to me to find which of the specified sexual acts the defendant committed. That can be a difficult task in some cases, but it is not in this case. In this case, the tendency evidence relied upon by the State from some 16 witnesses was, in my view, overwhelming evidence of the guilt of the accused on all charges and alleged unlawful sexual acts. I am satisfied, beyond any doubt, that the defendant committed each and every one of the unlawful sexual acts alleged in relation to counts 1, 7, 8 and 9. That is to say, all of the indecent assaults I have set out above in relation to NPCS, SP, GH and TB.
This crime of persistent sexual abuse of a child, by its nature, applies to a wide range of sexual offences in a wide range of circumstances, and consequently there is no discernible sentencing range. The defendant, however, is to suffer the same penalty as would have been imposed if the individual sexual acts constituting the crime had been charged as separate crimes, such that the sentence is a just and appropriate measure of the defendant’s total criminality. The total aggregate sentence is then to be moderated by considerations of proportionality and totality.
Because I intend to impose a global sentence, in respect not just the crimes of persistent sexual abuse of a child, but also in respect of the crimes set out in the other 10 counts on the indictment, I am required by law to identify the sentence that I would have imposed for each crime, separately. The periods of imprisonment I would have imposed are as follows:
Count 1 – 4 years
Count 2 – 9 months
Count 3 – 18 months
Count 4 – 2 years
Count 5 – 2 years
Count 6 – 9 months
Count 7 – 3 years
Count 8 – 3 years
Count 9 – 3 years
Count 10 – 4 years
Count 11 – 9 months
Count 12 – 18 months
Count 13 – 18 months
Count 14 – 9 months
The aggregate of those sentences is a period of imprisonment of 28 ½ years.
That aggregate sentence is to be moderated, as I have said, to take account of the principles of proportionality and totality.
As to proportionality, it must be remembered that these crimes were committed against 10 separate complainants over a period of 27 years, and that each complainant experienced very significant harm, as can be seen from the victim impact statements of which I have had the benefit.
As to totality, I must reflect on the aggregate sentence to ensure that it is proportionate to the defendant’s overall criminality, and that he is not subjected to a crushing sentence.
The application of these principles must be balanced against the gravity of the overall offending.
In addition, as Wood J said in DPP v Harrington [2017] TASCCA 4 at [27] the result of aggregating sentences has a compounding effect on the severity of the total sentence. The severity of a gaol sentence is not simply proportionate to its length. As Malcolm CJ said in Clinch v The Queen [1994] WASC 57M 72 A Crim R 301 at 306: “… the severity of a term of imprisonment increases exponentially as it increases in length … Thus, a sentence of five years is more than five times as severe as a sentence of one year.”
Overall, I should add, I am assisted in my task by a close consideration of the observations of the judges of the Court of Criminal appeal in Harrington, which case has similarities to the present but also very significant differences.
I have allowed for all of those considerations, however the only proper sentence is a long period of imprisonment, with an allowance for parole, given the defendant’s age and health. They are personal considerations which weigh less in the balance in cases of the sexual abuse of children and young people than in other cases.
Child sex offences have enormous potential to cause psychological as well as physical harm. Conduct of this nature has profound and deleterious physical and psychological effects upon victims for many years, if not for the whole of their lives. The consequences of an offence, including its effect on a victim, are important considerations in the sentencing process, and the severity of the sentence may be increased because of them.
This is a most serious example of sexual predation and abuse given the imbalance of power and the terrible breach of trust involved, and also given the number of sexual assaults and the length of the period over which they occurred. General deterrence, punishment, vindication of the victim and community protection are the primary and the dominant sentencing factors.
I take into account everything said on behalf of the defendant by his counsel, Ms Sawyer, and the material advanced on his behalf, however, there are no mitigating circumstances in this case and many aggravating circumstances, including the applicable statutory aggravating factors. Previous good character counts for very little in cases such as this and the medical identification of the defendant’s personality impairment and paraphilic disorder do not call for a moderation of an otherwise appropriate sentence.
The defendant has demonstrated no remorse and while he is entitled to plead not guilty, he has caused his victims to relive their abuse by giving evidence in Court. Egregiously, he also labelled them as liars and copycats, engaged in fraudulent pursuit of compensation from the Department of Education. He did not once look at, or acknowledge, any of his victims in Court during the reading of victim impact statements and the State sentencing submissions. He has not acknowledged his crimes and that causes me concern, not just in relation to his risk of re-offending.
The victim impact statements I have received demonstrate the enormous, far reaching, enduring, and devastating effects the defendant’s crimes have had on the lives of his victims and their families. In varying degrees, the defendant’s crimes have been destructive of the lives and the happiness of the complainants.
The nature and number of the defendant’s acts, committed as a teacher, upon so many of his students, over a period of almost three decades, are the acts of a morally and socially worthless person.
Keith Athol Bates-Willie, you are convicted of each count upon which you have been found guilty. I make an order under the Community Protection (Offender Reporting) Act 2005, directing that the Registrar cause your name to be placed on the register, and that you comply with the reporting obligations under that Act, for the remainder of your life. I impose a global sentence. You are sentenced to a period of 21 years’ imprisonment, backdated to 12 August 2025 to take account of the time you have already spent in custody, and I order that you are not to be eligible for parole until you have served 11 years of that sentence.