STATE OF TASMANIA v SHANNON ASHLEY JOHNSON 21 NOVEMBER 2025
COMMENTS ON PASSING SENTENCE PEARCE J
Shannon Johnson you plead guilty to one count of grooming with intent to expose a child to indecent material. The crime was committed more than five years ago in 2020. You were then aged 21 and were working as a shift supervisor at a fast food restaurant in which the complainant also worked. She was 15. In early 2020 you sent her a Facebook friend request, which she accepted. She also gave you her Snapchat details. You began to communicate through these platforms. In March of that year you sent her an unsolicited nude photograph of yourself accompanied by the words “do you like my body”. That was a crime because you intentionally exposed her to that indecent image knowing that she was only 15. She sent back an image of the top part of her body only wearing a bra but it is not asserted that you requested her to do so.
The complainant told a teacher that you had done something in 2020. The matter was investigated but not pursued until you were interviewed and charged in 2022. You made some limited admissions.
You are now aged 27. Your plea of guilty is in your favour. It is not an early plea but the delay is explained by the initial delay in prosecution and the fact that you were also charged with other offences which are no longer pursued. You have no prior convictions and there has been no subsequent offending. You were relatively young at the time. You are now married and have held stable employment with a different employer ever since.
Protection of children is the principal sentencing aim for crimes of this nature. Although you were young you were in a position of authority over her in your employment. It is not suggested that you deliberately used your authority over the complainant but there was a difference in age and maturity and a power imbalance. Use of phones or computers to transmit indecent material is serious because it happens in private, beyond the knowledge of those responsible for the care and supervision of children. This crime can be very serious as a result but I do not regard this as a bad example of it. It was a single apparently isolated instance. Because they were sent on Snapchat, there was no risk that either the image of you or the image of her would be further distributed. No serious impact on the victim is asserted to have resulted from this crime.
Having regard to the nature of your conduct, your age at the time, and your personal circumstances since then I am satisfied that you do not pose a material risk of committing another reportable offence and I decline to make an order under the Community Protection (Offender Reporting) Act 2005. A conviction of itself will have a considerable impact on you. I think that this is most appropriately dealt with by imposition of a fine which takes into account your present financial circumstances.
You are convicted on the indictment and fined $1,500. I may only give you 28 days to pay but you may apply to enter into a repayment arrangement if you wish to do so.