STATE OF TASMANIA v TIMOTHY CHARLES SARGENT 1 DECEMBER 2022
COMMENTS ON PASSING SENTENCE JAGO J
Timothy Charles Sargent, you have pleaded guilty to two counts of grooming with intent to expose a child or young person to indecent material and two counts of involving a person under 18 years in the production of child exploitation material. The charges relate to two complainants. Both complainants were aged 15 to 16 at the time of the offending. You were aged between 27 and 28.
You met Complainant 1 through an AFL Umpires Association. In around September 2018, Complainant 1 added you on the social media platform Snapchat. Initially, the two of you would converse about matters pertaining to football and umpiring. Sometime after connecting on Snapchat, however, you began to message Complainant 1 about more personal matters and you asked about his sex life. In response, Complainant 1 would fabricate stories. Around the same time, you and Complainant 1 were both involved in an AFL umpire group chat. Within this group chat, there were other young males and you were involved. In the group chat, there would be conversation about sexual matters, including conversation in which the participants would brag about their penis size. The conversation in this group chat was seen by the participants as flippant and involving light-hearted bragging. You then, however, began to message Complainant 1 outside of the group chat and pursued conversations similar to those in the group chat. You asked him questions which were sexually explicit. Complainant 1 was very guarded as to what he said in response. You also started sending Complainant 1 photographs of yourself. Initially, they were relatively innocuous, involving photographs of you in the bathroom wearing a towel, but in time you began to send Complainant 1 partial images of your penis, and then full images of your penis. You would also send videos that included images of your penis, often including close up images.
Initially, it was asserted by the State that between late September 2018 and late December 2018 the defendant had sent Complainant 1 “hundreds of these types of images”. This was disputed by the defendant. Complainant 1 gave evidence on the sentencing hearing. His evidence was he received about 27 photographs of the defendant’s penis and that the defendant also sent him three images that were pornographic in nature of females, and 5-10 videos which had sexual content. He also said he received “at least a hundred” other messages which contained sexually explicit comments, but not images, from the defendant. He did not give any specific detail in his evidence as to what he meant by “sexually explicit comment” but I infer from his evidence generally that it was comments about his sex life, his sexual practices and his penis size. The defendant would also on occasion, tell Complainant 1 about his sex life and sexual practices. In terms of the number and nature of messages sent by the defendant to Complainant 1, I will sentence on the basis of his evidence as I have just outlined.
On one occasion, the defendant sent Complainant 1 a video of a naked female and told Complainant 1 that she wanted “a big dick guy”. He asked Complainant 1 to send a picture of his penis so it could be sent on to the female. Complainant 1 took a photograph of his penis and sent it to the defendant via Snapchat, expecting given how that social media platform operates, that it would automatically delete. Instead, the defendant took a screen shot of this image and caused it to be saved. The defendant also suggested to Complainant 1 that he and others should have a “4 way” sexual encounter with the female in the video. On one occasion, the defendant had an in-person conversation with Complainant 1 about penis sizes and suggested he would like to see Complainant 1’s penis.
By March 2019, Complainant 1 had started to feel uncomfortable and began not to respond to the defendant on Snapchat. In mid-2019, the defendant sent Complainant 1 a message asking him to delete their communications so no one would know what went on. Complainant 1 did delete the communications. Thereafter, contact stopped. The period of time over which the communications occurred was approximately six months, although there was a period of about three weeks between Boxing Day 2018 and mid-January 2019 when Complainant 1 was not accessing social media.
In the later part of 2018, the defendant met the second complainant, Complainant 2, through the same AFL umpiring organisation. They were both users of Snapchat and mutually added each other as friends. Complainant 2 was also part of the AFL umpire group chat that included the defendant and Complainant 1. Complainant 2, who also gave evidence on the sentencing hearing, agreed that he would participate in conversation within this group chat about penis sizes and sexual experiences, and on occasion may have initiated conversation around that subject matter. Initially, the conversations between Complainant 2 and the defendant, in the private messages on Snapchat, were benign. They discussed football, umpiring and schooling. Towards the end of 2018 however, the defendant began to message Complainant 2 asking him if he was in a relationship and whether he had had previously had sexual intercourse.
In March 2019, the defendant sent Complainant 2 a photograph of himself in which the fly on his pants was down, but his penis was not visible. When Complainant 2 questioned the image, the defendant sent a message saying “Oops, that wasn’t meant for you, sorry”. Shortly after this, the defendant sent Complainant 2 a photograph of his penis. The photograph was a close up shot. Complainant 2 did not respond to this message.
The defendant maintains it was Complainant 2 who first sent an image of his penis on their private messages following discussion about such matters on the group chat, and that he responded by sending an image of his penis. I note in his evidence at the sentencing hearing, Complainant 2 conceded that this was a possibility. I do not consider it necessary to determine the sequence for sentencing purposes for reasons I shall shortly set out.
The defendant sent Complainant 2 an image of his penis and then sent a second photograph of his penis. On the second occasion he asked Complainant 2 to send an image of Complainant 2’s penis back to him. Complainant 2 did this. The defendant then sent a series of messages in which he asked Complainant 2 questions about how large his erect penis might be. Shortly after this conversation, the defendant sent a further photograph of his penis to Complainant 2. There was an exchange of messages about erect penises and sizes, before the defendant asked Complainant 2 to send another photograph of his penis. Complainant 2 did this also. The defendant replied by saying “the ladies would love that”.
In July 2019, the defendant sent Complainant 2 a picture of a female wearing a bikini and asked Complainant 2 if he would like to engage in a “threesome” with the female. There were two further occasions where the defendant sent Complainant 2 photographs of his penis and asked Complainant 2 to send him back a photograph of his penis. Again, Complainant 2 did this. Complainant 2 estimates the defendant sent approximately 10 photographs of his penis to him during the offending period. During message conversations on Snapchat and also in person, the defendant would engage in sexually explicit conversation with Complainant 2, including asking him whether he wished to have a competition to see who could ejaculate quicker. By July or August 2019, Complainant 2 stopped opening messages from the defendant and the messaging ceased. Again the period of time over which the inappropriate communications occurred was approximately six months.
The matters were disclosed in August 2020. An investigation was conducted. Police searched the defendant’s home. Nothing of relevance was located.
The defendant is now 31 years of age. He has no relevant prior convictions. He lives alone and is employed in his family’s stockfeed business. He suffers from autism. I am told the defendant engaged in this behaviour because he felt more comfortable interacting with younger people and misinterpreted the intent of the communications within the group chat. It is submitted he has difficulty understanding the nuances of relationships and social interactions because of his autism. Personality features associated with autism include deficits in social-emotional reciprocity, deficits in maintaining and understanding relationships, deficits in understanding and responding to social interactions, and deficits in adjusting behaviour to suit various social contexts.
I have read and considered a psychological report prepared by Dr Georgina O’Donnell. In that report, Ms O’Donnell notes the defendant presents with typical autism characteristics. He has also experienced episodes of situational depression. She also notes that when he was in Scouts as a 12 year old, an older male engaged him in sexual activity and that as an adult the defendant has experienced two “scary” sexual experiences with males.
Dr O’Donnell opines the defendant’s early sexual experience with a male when he was in Scouts, and the social impairments he experiences as a consequence of his autism have relevance in the development of likely sexual interest in adolescent males, although notes he did not present with a Paedophilic Disorder.
As to the application of Verdins, Ms O’Donnell notes as follows, and I quote: “There is a causal link between the defendant’s autism and the alleged offending behaviour. Due to his condition, he finds it easier to socialise with younger males than men his own age and has difficulty with the social nuances of appropriate conversation and ‘sexting’ behaviour (impaired judgment). However, in the context of these alleged offences, the condition does not impair him to the extent that he is unable to think clearly, make him disinhibited, impair his ability to appreciate the wrongfulness of his conduct, or obscure intent.”
Based on that opinion, I accept the defendant’s autism impairs his ability to exercise appropriate judgment such that his moral culpability is lessened to some extent. He is more comfortable communicating with younger people, and his inability to appreciate the subtleties of social and intimate relationships contributed to his behaviours. But he is not impaired in terms of his capacity to appreciate the wrongfulness of his conduct, thus regardless of who may have sent the first photograph or started the conversations, the defendant had a responsibility as an adult to behave towards young people appropriately, safely and respectfully. I also accept that the defendant’s autism will mean any period of imprisonment will weigh more heavily upon him and place him at risk of further adverse effects upon his mental health. In the past, the defendant has reacted poorly to stressful situations, including by engaging in impulsive suicidal behaviours. The State does not dispute Dr O’Donnell’s opinion that there is a causal connection between the defendant’s impairments and his criminal acts such as to reduce moral culpability.
I note the defendant has engaged with a psychologist, Mr Paul Campbell, since these charges came to light. He has been working with him in developing strategies to ensure appropriate social media use, the development of safety protocols for social interactions, communication needs and his anxiety and depression. I have read and considered a report from him. He also does not consider the defendant to have paedophilic thoughts.
Sport has been a primary leisure activity for the defendant for many years. He has worked as a statistician and in other administration roles for a number of sporting clubs over many years. The defendant is now unable to participate due to having his Working with Vulnerable Persons accreditation suspended because of these offences. Consequently, he now has very limited social interaction opportunities, which is likely to exacerbate his mental health difficulties.
I had the defendant assessed as to his suitability for a Home Detention Order. He is not considered suitable because both Community Corrections and his treating psychologist consider the restrictions of a Home Detention Order would exacerbate the defendant’s mental health condition, and the social isolation associated with such an order may well precipitate a deterioration in his mental health. The defendant is considered suitable for Community Service hours, but not supervision. He is assessed as presenting with low criminogenic risks, because he has employment, the support of family and he is engaged with psychological services.
I have received and considered Victim Impact Statements. Both complainants describe experiencing feelings of anxiety and uncertainty as a consequence of the defendant’s criminal offending. They are now more guarded in the formation of any relationships with older males. They often treat others with suspicion. They describe feeling a range of emotions from anger to confusion to self-blame.
These offences involved the use of social media and messaging services by a mature adult to prey on vulnerable young men. Whilst I cannot be satisfied the defendant did it purely for sexual gratification reasons given the content of the psychological reports, the complainants were not to know that and the impact upon them remains. Such conduct is often highly damaging to young persons. It is offending that is reasonably easy to commit and it is often veiled in secrecy because of its very nature.
Sexual abuse of children in whatever form is a matter of great community concern and deserves condemnation. General deterrence is a weighty sentencing consideration. The report of Dr O’Donnell does not suggest either general or specific deterrence should be eliminated as sentencing considerations, although I am satisfied, given the content of the reports, that they ought be moderated. The Court nevertheless retains an obligation to mark the seriousness of crimes of this nature as a signal to others who may be tempted to act in a similar way in the future. Having said that, it is important to acknowledge and balance the factors which make the defendant’s crimes objectively serious against his personal circumstances, in particular the mental impairment to which I have referred; the absence of prior convictions and the early plea of guilty.
I have attempted to fashion orders which balance the need for punishment, deterrence and denunciation with an acknowledgement that an individualised approach is warranted because of those factors I have identified and the defendant’s consequential reduced moral culpability.
I have concluded the most appropriate way to balance all competing interests is the imposition of a suspended term of imprisonment. Because there is a need, in my view, for some immediate punitive effect, the defendant will also be required to perform a number of community service hours.
Timothy Sargent, you are convicted on each count. You are sentenced to imprisonment for two years. The execution of that period of imprisonment will be wholly suspended on condition that for a period of two years, you are not to commit another offence punishable by imprisonment. I warn you, that if you breach the condition of suspension, you will be required to serve the term of imprisonment unless it is unjust.
I make a Community Corrections Order for a period of two years, with a special condition that you perform 98 hours of community service. I make an order directing that the Registrar under the Community Protection (Offender) Reporting Act 2005, cause your name to be placed on the Register and that you comply with the reporting obligations under that Act for a period of four years from today.
In accordance with s 11(3) of the Sentencing Act, I identify the sentence which I would have imposed for each crime had I sentenced them separately and absent considerations of totality as follows:
- Count 1 – a term of imprisonment of eight months, wholly suspended;
- Count 2 –a term of imprisonment of six months, wholly suspended;
- Count 3 –a term of imprisonment of six months, wholly suspended;
- Count 4 – a term of imprisonment of eight months, wholly suspended.
I make one further order and that is, Mr Sargent, you must report to Community Corrections, Burnie, by 10.00 am tomorrow morning.