STATE OF TASMANIA v ZOE MAREE LOCKLEY 16 MARCH 2026
COMMENTS ON PASSING SENTENCE ESTCOURT J
The defendant, Zoe Maree Lockley, who was 22 years old at the time of the offending, has pleaded guilty to the crimes of grooming with intent to expose a young person to indecent material, and involving a person under the age of 18 in the production of child exploitation material. The male complainant was 16 years old at the time of the offending.
Sometime in early 2023, the parties came into contact with one another via social media. They started to communicate with each other on Snapchat and Instagram. Conversation topics included their relationship and their lives in general. During these conversations the defendant became aware that the complainant was 16 years old.
During June 2023, the pair had a conversation on Instagram that became sexual in nature. The conversation involved the exchange of several messages between the pair, which started with the complainant saying that he would love a hug, but soon became very graphic in referring to the pair engaging in various forms of sexual intercourse.
During this conversation the defendant sent a picture of her exposed breasts and the complainant sent the defendant a picture of his penis.
The complainant’s mother became aware of the conversation between the pair and contacted police.
On 31 August 2023, the defendant attended the Glenorchy Police Station and participated in a recorded interview, which included the following comments:
- The defendant confirmed she had started a friendship with the complainant on social media, but “it started to get to the sexual side of things”;
- She did not remember what she was sent in relation to inappropriate pictures, she did remember he did send something, of his “lower half”, being a “dick pic”;
- The complainant told her pretty much straight away he was 16 years old, but she went against her “better judgement”, but could not remember what happened after that;
- She accepted it was the wrong thing to do;
- She suffered from depression and anxiety and saw the conversation as a form of friendship and a way of being close to someone and that the attention felt good;
- She admitted to having discussed oral sex and sex in general with the complainant during the conversation;
- She noted that she was immature at the time and had worked on this since; and
- She confirmed that she had asked the complainant to send her a picture of his erect penis and that she knew this was wrong.
The defendant has no prior convictions.
I note that she had turned 22 one month before the offending occurred and, had she been 21 years of age at the time, a defence to count 1 would have been afforded to her by s 125D(5)(a) of the Criminal Code, namely that the complainant was over 15 and she was not more than five years older.
The defendant’s schooling was marred in that she was the victim of bullying, in both primary and high schools. This resulted in her moving schools a number of times and finding it difficult to make lasting friendships. A late diagnosis of ADHD appears to account for her lack of ability to focus and concentrate academically.
She commenced a degree in applied health and community support at UTAS, but abandoned it after two years when she found the units difficult and was failing the subjects. It was during this period she also battled with declining mental health and physical pain as a result of a back injury inflicted when she was a pedestrian hit by a motor vehicle.
Around 2022, her life had taken a downhill turn. Her relationship with her mother had deteriorated to the extent that she was asked to leave the family home. She was engaging in self-harm by cutting herself. A relationship with a male, with whom she had resided with in early 2023, ended, causing her considerable emotional distress. This appears to have been the catalyst for her to seek solace in communicating with people, as friends or as intimate relationships online.
A diagnosis of ADHD, depression, mild autistic spectrum disorder presentation and an emerging borderline personality disorder influenced her offending behaviour according to a report I received from a psychologist, Dr Jordan. Notably, Dr Jordan indicated that her behaviour was for the purpose of sexual gratification. He outlined Ms Lockley’s description of gaining comfort from the attention of the complainant.
Ms Lockley’s personality structure made her vulnerable to any rejection within a relationship, particularly upon termination of one. Therefore, it was notable and highly relevant to her offending, he says, that she had experienced the end of a relationship within the same month that her offending occurred.
Battling with low-self-esteem, friendships and relationships were important to her, as was overall acceptance. Abandonment, actual or imagined, poses significant distress and has affected her direction in life, said Dr Jordan.
Dr Jordan also noted impulsivity in the face of her mental health stressors. He has identified that her mental disorders impacted her mental functioning, importantly her decision-making. The relevant communications occurred at a time when she was experiencing extreme difficulty with her mental health and related stressors.
Described as a ‘fragile and socially immature’ individual with ‘chronic problems with self-esteem’, Dr Jordan indicated she would best improve her understanding of managing relationships via existing support networks, including counselling.
In June 2023, immediately after the offending and in January 2024, the defendant was admitted to hospital on four occasions as a result of suicidal ideation. On various occasions in 2023 and 2024, she availed herself of support services for suicidal individuals and for assistance with relationship breakdowns.
She engaged with Wellways – a mental health, wellbeing and carer service provider. She completed a two year course called “Wellways to Recovery”, which involved hourly counselling sessions each fortnight for two years. Whilst that course has ended, she has been provided with contact details for support service providers, if required. To this end, it is noted, she has achieved the type of counselling recommended by Dr Jordan to enhance her understanding of relationships.
She reports that her mental health has improved and she has acquired skills to better cope with stressors personal to her. The last incident involving self-harm was almost 18 months ago.
She has not been medicated for ADHD for the past three years, which has been discussed with her general practitioner. She uses mindfulness strategies to improve her concentration and reports that that is successful.
After having unstable accommodation for a considerable period, she lived in supported accommodation for six months before securing accommodation through Housing Tasmania. She has now been able to live independently for the past 12 months.
In terms of her career, she commenced a childcare course at TAFE for three months before it became evident that an existing back injury was exacerbated in placement activities. Accordingly, she went on to complete a hospitality course, also through TAFE. Her completion of the course and her enjoyment of it meant she pursued employment in hospitality and was successful in obtaining a position as bar and gaming attendant at an hotel. She has been employed for four months, working almost full-time hours and has ambitions to progress within that hotel to become a supervisor.
Her approach to intimate relationships has matured and she has experienced a healthy relationship with a partner now for the past 18 months.
There is no victim impact statement in this case.
I am satisfied to the requisite degree that it is not necessary for me to make an order under the Community Protection (Offender Reporting) Act 2005.
It goes without saying that grooming and the creation of child exploitation material are insidious crimes, calling for strong sentences that deter and denounce the conduct and vindicate the victim. In all of the circumstances I have set out however, I regard this case as being very much at the lower end of the range of seriousness seen by the Court.
In the matter of Johnson, a sentence of Pearce J on 21 November 2025, his Honour recorded a conviction and imposed a fine of $1,500 in a case with some similarities to the present. But the cases are not the same. His Honour said in that case:
“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.”
His Honour went on to say:
“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.”
In the present case, the progression of the critical conversation between the defendant and the complainant does not, in my view, compare with the unsolicited post in Johnson, and the features of any power imbalance, including the age of the complainant, were different.
I am concerned that the defendant is a young woman whose entire future might be very much disproportionally damaged by a single mistake. I am impressed by the submission of her counsel that”:
“[the defendant] is a remorseful, youthful offender with considerable mental health conditions affecting her presentation and behaviour. She has gained insight into her behaviour and has taken steps to overcome significant personal adversity, which influenced her poor decision making in the first instance.”
In my view, this is an appropriate case to take a course rarely used in this Court and one never used by me in 13 years as a judge. I apply s 7(h) of the Sentencing Act and without recording a conviction, I order the dismissal of the charges for the offences to which the defendant has pleaded guilty.