THE KING v JACK ARTHUR PULLEN 20 DECEMBER 2024
STATE OF TASMANIA v JACK ARTHUR PULLEN
COMMENTS ON PASSING SENTENCE PORTER AJ
Jack Pullen, the defendant, faces two indictments. The first is a Commonwealth one which charges him with that between 9 May 2023 and 3 October 2023, he accessed child abuse material using a carriage service, and that on 4 October 2023 he possessed or controlled child abuse material which he obtained or accessed by use of a carriage service. He has pleaded guilty to those charges. The second indictment is a State one, containing one count of aggravated burglary, one count of aggravated cruelty under the Animal Welfare Act and one count of arson, all crimes alleged to have been committed on 11 March 2024. He has pleaded guilty to those charges and I am also dealing with his plea of guilty to a summary charge of unlawfully possessing a dangerous article in a public place, namely a machete. As to the Commonwealth matter, on 4 October 2023 Australian Federal Police executed a search warrant at the defendant’s home. One mobile phone was seized. The device was found to contain a total of 26 files of child abuse material made up of 20 videos and six images. The 20 videos were found in the Recycling Bin, five images were found in the Gallery folder and one image in Clipboard. All of the material was accessed and downloaded by the defendant using the Telegram application. That is a cloud based instant messaging application that provides end-to-end encrypted video and file sharing. The one child abuse image in Clipboard was accessed on 10 May 2023, the other five images between 1 October and 3 October 2023, while 20 videos were downloaded between 9 May 2023 and 30 September 2023. The video material included the following. One 30 second video depicting a female about eight to ten years of age lying on a couch naked being vaginally penetrated by an erect penis, a two minute and four second video depicting two males about four to six years of age lyingon a bed naked and performing oral sex on each other and a one minute 29 second video showing a prepubescent female performing oral sex on an adult erect male penis leading to ejaculation on the female’s face. Count two on this indictment relates to the five child abuse images located in the mobile phone’s Gallery on 3 October 2023. The settings in the Telegram application were configured so that some files would automatically download within the application itself, but not so configured as to automatically download any files to the internal or Gallery storage of the phone. When interviewed, the defendant said that he had downloaded the images and videos onto his phone and deleted them straight away, that he “had stupidly” downloaded them and clicked on them to do so, but some are downloaded automatically. He said that he did not get sexual gratification from the child abuse material and did not masturbate to it.
The complainant in the three State charges is the defendant’s mother, Debbie Honey. The course of events started on Friday 8 March 2024. At about midday, the defendant was at his home with Ms Honey and his two children. Child Safety Services contacted him to tell him that he would need his mother’s supervision when seeing his two young children from then on. This arose from the Commonwealth offending. He became distressed and left the house. Ms Honey feared he might be suicidal. Two days later, the defendant went to a friend’s house where he stored his motorcycle. He told her that he wanted to get fuel to use it to burn down his mother’s house. He drained some fuel from the motorcycle into a container. His friend managed to stop him from leaving her home, at which point he became angry and poured the fuel over himself, and asked his friend to get him a lighter. She refused and managed to calm him down. The next day, 11 March 2024, the defendant sent a message to his mother that he was about to walk to his house so once he got there, she and the boys could go. She told him that she had already left with his two children. The defendant then sent a text message saying, “Yeah, well it looks like your unit is getting set on fire then”. The defendant was seen to place the fuel container into a sports bag; he told his friend that he would be back shortly and that he was going to burn down his mother’s house. He left also in possession of a machete. He went to his mother’s unit in Chigwell, a property owned by Mission Tasmania. He left a voicemail with his mother saying that her unit was about to be set alight. He also said, “I am going to snap your fucking birds neck and send you a video of it, you cunt”. He added that she had five minutes to call and tell him where his sons were, otherwise the unit was to be burnt. Very shortly after, the defendant entered Ms Honey’s house by way of opening a window and then the front door. He took Ms Honey’s pet cockatiel from its cage, broke the bird’s neck by snapping it with his hands and put it back it in its cage. He poured fuel onto the couch in the loungeroom and set it alight, left the address and walked back to his friend’s house. Tasmania police officers saw him walking away and saw him throw the bag containing the jerry can and the machete into the bush. He was arrested and taken to the police station. When interviewed he made full admissions. He said Ms Honey thought she had more right to his sons then he did, and she would not tell him where they were. He had the machete as he was going to kill himself with it. He just snapped and was angry. He did not check if the neighbours were home as he was too angry and agreed that the fire could easily have spread to other units. He said he sent his mother a photo of the bird “to piss her off”. The State’s case is that although the bird was killed, the injury done was unlikely to have caused immediate insensibility and it was likely to have experienced pain and suffering in a prolonged period until loss of consciousness and death occurred. The damage to the property is estimated to be about $250,000. I note the defendant has been in custody since 10 March 2024.
He is now 30 years old and has a recorded history of offending. That includes injury to property, disorderly conduct, breaches of a family violence order, a number of summary assault matters some minor drug offending and traffic matters including driving while disqualified. In May 2018 on an assault he was sentenced to six weeks’ imprisonment, suspended on conditions for 12 months with a probation order that included a condition concerning psychological and psychiatric treatment. I have the benefit of counsel’s submissions as well as a detailed report from Dr Michael Jordan, forensic psychiatrist, dated 21 October 2024. The defendant’s parents separated when he was about seven years old. He was exposed to domestic violence inflicted by his father on his mother; these form some of his earliest memories. It was also at this age that he was sexually assaulted by the son of a family friend. That incident did not come to light until many years later, and it does not seem to have been taken as seriously as it ought to have been during his teenage years. In his formative and early school years his mother frequently moved to avoid his father. That involved periods of homelessness. As a result, his education was disrupted and turbulent. He was diagnosed with and treated for ADHD. He did not consistently attend grade 10 and was then beginning to use alcohol regularly. He has not had any formal employment but only occasional, casual arrangements helping friends with projects, and is now in receipt of a disability support pension. As the defendant got older, his alcohol use increased and he would become angry and dysregulated, resulting damage to property or acts of self-harm. That is described as maladaptive coping mechanisms. When 18 he was put on a mental health care plan and has been assessed by the psychiatry team on several occasions at the emergency department after various incidents. During his 20’s he was treated for depression and has been on different anti-depressants over time. His mental health picture is completed by seizures, which may be a result of a head injury he sustained when he was assaulted. There is a background of epilepsy for which he takes medication. I note his alcohol use increased significantly after being charged with child abuse material offences. The two children mentioned in the facts are boys aged eight and ten. He separated from their mother not long after the birth of the second child, and essentially had custody of them until Child Support Services became involved after he was first charged, and his mother was given custody. Up until that point he had a close and supportive relationship with her and up until then it would seem he was a good parent, albeit acting in the difficult role of a single parent, but that role was central to his identity and self-esteem.
In Dr Jordan’s view, the defendant is suffering from a borderline personality disorder. This disorder is not unusual in those who have been exposed to abusive and traumatic events during their formative years. Features of this disorder present in the defendant’s case, are recurrent suicidal behaviour gestures and self-harm, chronic feelings of emptiness and dissatisfaction, and inappropriate intense anger or difficulty in controlling anger. Dr Jordan says the impact potentially being labelled a paedophile and deemed an unsatisfactory parent would have been devastating. He viewed his parenting as one of the few areas he maintained consistent and successfully and when that was put into question significant emotional dysregulation unfolded. In terms of the Verdins limbs, Dr Jordan says mental impairment, in the form of the personality disorder, caused the defendant to become disinhibited. He saw setting fire to his mother’s property as a means to at least gaining temporary access to his children. The conduct of breaking in, killing the bird and then setting the fire to the property, all evidence him having deficiencies in the ability to exercise appropriate judgment. However, he did have some awareness of the wrongfulness of his conduct. Dr Jordan continues on to say that the defendant requires appropriate mental health intervention “rather than necessarily extended time in custody”. From the perspective of receiving appropriate mental health intervention, this would be best served by him returning to the community. Given the defendant’s propensity for emotional dysregulation, it is likely that any given sentence will weigh more heavily on him than that it would on an individual without that personality structure. Dr Jordan has no concerns in relation to any risk of future sexual offending. He says there is an extremely low chance of that happening.
As to the offending, in terms of the Commonwealth offences, I was told he joined a Telegram group hosted by a female adult content creator, the purpose of which was to share her own adult content. He was in search of adult pornography only. Others in group would share unrelated content which would often be part of the folders he downloaded. Some of the folders he downloaded included child abuse material. When he discovered that material, he would quickly delete it. At one point the users were alerted to the fact that unlawful material was being shared. The defendant accepts he continued to download material knowing the risk that unlawful material would be included. He is adamant that he was not trying access child abuse material. The files that were on the phone and not in the recycle bin were downloaded the day before the Police searched his home. None of this is in dispute, it is not inherently unlikely and is borne out by the objective facts. As to the State offending, after the involvement of Child Safety Services, I was told the defendant became suicidal. He was drinking alcohol and taking diazepam to excess. He was trying to shut out his feelings. On the day in question he sought contact with his sons through his mother but was told that they were with their own mother. That increased his distress because the reason he obtained custody in the first place was because of the mother’s drug use and violence in her home.
Accessing and possessing child exploitation material involves a high degree of criminality. These are not victimless crimes. The production of such material involves the exploitation and abuse of children somewhere in the world. The damage done is often profound. Possession and viewing exacerbate and extend the abuse and exploitation. Access and possession tend to create a demand for its production. Arson is generally a serious crime. It often involves considerable risk to firefighters who are called to the scene and risk to neighbours both of which risks were present in this case. This case is at a high level of seriousness because of the extent of the damage. I would also note this form of housing has intrinsic social value. Cruelty to animals is also a matter that calls for condemnation and consideration of attempting to deter others. I take into account the defendant’s personal circumstances as outlined, which of themselves may entitle him to some leniency. I take into account his pleas of guilty to all matters and his cooperation with police. In the circumstances of this case, s 19(5) of the Crimes Act 1914 requires me not to make an order that has the effect that a term of imprisonment imposed for a Commonwealth child sex offence be served partly cumulatively, or concurrently, with an uncompleted term of imprisonment that is, or has been, imposed on the person for another Commonwealth child sex offence. That is unless, in accordance with subs (6), I am satisfied that imposing sentence in a different manner will still result in a sentence of appropriate severity in all the circumstances. There is no restriction on what different manner might be adopted. I propose to impose the one sentence for the two Commonwealth offences, a course that is available to me under s 11 of the Sentencing Act (Tas): see Putland v The Queen [2004] HCA 8, 218 CLR 174, Eyeson v The Queen [2024] NSWCCA 52 at [60], and in this State, R v Cook [2018] TASCCA 20 at [63]. I am satisfied that this course has the result required by s 19(6). I take that course because, by definition, the crime of possession of child abuse material is consequent on the crime of accessing such material using a carriage service.* Further, I proceed on the basis that although the Commonwealth and the State offences are different in nature, there is in fact a connection between the criminal conduct, as has been outlined. Plainly, the state of the defendant’s mental health needs to be addressed by expert intervention. I propose to suspend the execution of part of the intended term to allow that to occur in a more conducive environment and so as to provide an incentive.
Mr Pullen, I have set out the facts, your personal circumstances and the relevant considerations I need to take into account. I have accepted your version of events in relation to the child abuse material and your lack of intention in respect of obtaining and viewing it. That it came into your possession in the way it did and your attempts of deleting it have significant mitigatory value. However, you continued to download material from this user group knowing the risk, and your plea of guilty admits the mental element of possession. Because of these things I’m not satisfied that exceptional circumstances exist; imprisonment is necessary but I will make some accommodation in that respect when dealing with the other sentence. Arson is a serious crime for obvious reasons. You were angry but with some awareness of wrongdoing you persisted in your plan to do harm to your mother over a number of days. That you caused pain and suffering to the bird is an inexcusable and it is made worse by the fact that it was done to spite your mother. At the same time, I acknowledge your mental health difficulties; they are extensive as explained by Dr Jordan. You are convicted of all matters. On the Commonwealth indictment, on the two offences you are sentenced to nine months’ imprisonment to commence on 11 March 2024. On the count of aggravated cruelty on the State indictment, count 2, you are sentenced to three months imprisonment to commence on 11 June 2024. On the remaining counts and on the summary charge you are sentenced to 21 months imprisonment cumulative to the sentence on count 2. In respect of that sentence on counts 1, 3 and the summary charge, 12 months of it is suspended on condition you commit no offence punishable by imprisonment for a period of 3 years. All of that amounts to an effective immediate term of imprisonment of 15 months, backdated. On the basis of Dr Jordan’s opinion, I am not satisfied that you pose a relevant risk within the meaning of the Community Protection (Offender Reporting) Act and I decline to make an order. I make a compensation order in favour of Mission Australia ABN 15 000 0002 522 in an amount to be assessed and adjourn that application to a date to be fixed.
*These comments were amended on 28 January 2025 to set out the approach mandated by s 19 of the Crimes Act 1914 in relation to the Commonwealth offences and to state my reasons for taking the course I did, as required by 19(7).