STATE OF TASMANIA v PETER JAMES SCHNETLER 4 FEBRUARY 2025
COMMENTS ON PASSING SENTENCE PORTER AJ
Peter James Schnetler, the defendant, pleaded guilty in the lower court to one count of grooming with intent to expose a child or young person to indecent material, and he appears in this Court for sentence. The particulars are that between 1 August 2023 and 12 September 2023, the defendant groomed a young girl, who meaning no disrespect, I will call “Samantha”, then aged about 16, by making an online communication to her with intent to expose her to indecent material, being a description of sexual acts. The facts are as follows. Samantha and her parents had been parishioners at a particular church for about four or five years and, as the defendant was a part-time pastor of the church, had come to know the defendant in that time. Samantha had an autism spectrum disorder and what was described as a “developmental speech disorder and tic disorder”. She suffered from anxiety and depression. In late 2022, with the support of Samantha’s parents, the defendant started to act in a supporting role in relation to Samantha’s mental health. The two spoke with each other online; mostly on each day. On occasions they exchanged innocuous photographs. This progressed to the stage where the defendant would often tell Samantha that he loved her and complimented her by calling her beautiful. In response to photographs she sent to him – again, apparently innocuous ones – he would respond to the effect that he loved her. This made Samantha feel uncomfortable, but she did not do anything about it. This continued on for a time, with the defendant, at one time, suggesting they move from Instagram to Snapchat as it was a more private platform and messages were deleted after a period of time. All of the communications were by electronic means; they did not meet or speak alone in person, although they met in church, which Samantha found awkward.
Ultimately, in about September 2023, the two were speaking via Instagram at a time when Samantha was experiencing suicidal ideation. She told the defendant this was how she was feeling. He suggested playing a game of “truth or dare” in order to distract her from thoughts of self-harm. This went on for a little time before the defendant suggested moving the conversation to Snapchat. Samantha asked a “truth” question in words to the effect of what was something the defendant regretted doing. He said that he had “fingered” a girl who was not his wife, and that he had once ejaculated on a woman’s face. He then asked her what made her horny. Samantha did not respond to this message. The defendant asked her if she was feeling alright and what was happening. Again, Samantha did not respond. Shortly after the defendant’s conduct, Samantha disclosed what had happened to her mother. Samantha’s family arranged a meeting with the pastor of the church and the conversation was reported to him. An internal investigation took place, as a result of which, the defendant wrote a lengthy apology, but ultimately police became involved when Samantha spoke to her general practitioner about what had happened. The defendant was interviewed on 9 January 2024. He said he was embarrassed, that he was speaking with Samantha late at night in the context of an inappropriate “truth or dare” game, but he did not initially admit to police messages with sexual connotations. However, after specific details were put to him, he admitted his conduct. He said he did not honestly know what his aim was and that his comments were misguided. He admitted that Samantha was a vulnerable person, that Samantha’s mental health deteriorated after the conversation and said that he did not perceive that it would harm her in any way.
The defendant is now 48 years old. He has no prior convictions to speak of. I have the benefit of submissions of counsel and a psychological report by Jeffrey Cummins dated 15 November 2024. I have also a home detention assessment report, dated 30 January 2025. The defendant was born in South Africa and came to Hobart in 2009, his parents having relocated to New Zealand with the family in about 2014. His mother and two siblings still live in New Zealand. He is married with an adult son who lives with him and his wife. He entered the country on a skilled migrant visa and has permanent residency. With qualifications in electronic engineering, he worked in this State in that area for about two years before undertaking a degree course in social science which he did because he was a man of faith and wanted to help people. Since 2016 he has worked in such areas as affordable housing with a number of benevolent organisations and at the time of his arrest he held working with vulnerable people certification, which is now suspended. He has no history of substance abuse in any form or gambling. He has no history of mental health issues. As part of the disciplinary process pursued by his church, he lost his position as part-time pastor with resultant financial loss of no little significance, and he was required to attend three sessions with a counsellor over a period of eight weeks. In the interview with Mr Cummins, the defendant referred to his offending as reckless in the sense that he did what he did without adequately thinking through the possible consequences for Samantha or for himself. He consistently stated that he now regards as what he did as being totally inappropriate. In Mr Cummins opinion, the offending is not indicative of any specific sexual deviance and there is no psychopathic personality disorder. Mr Cummins’ view is that the offending was situationally motivated, noting that the defendant had never been trained as a professional counsellor and had no adequate training or instructions regarding importance of maintaining appropriate boundaries when in a position of trust. Naivety and emotional vulnerability had a role in the offending. The defendant’s risk of reoffending is assessed by Mr Cummins as being low to moderate, trending towards low. The defendant has expressed deep regret to the probation officer in the course of the preparation of the report, and shown insight into the impact of his offending. I have a number of character references from people who know the defendant well, including the lead pastor of the church concerned. Those references support the proposition that this event is quite out of character.
The charged crime is labelled as grooming a young person with intent to expose that person to indecent material, but it is made out by any communication with the relevant intention. Actual exposure to indecent material is not an element. In this case, the State’s case is that the relevant communication is also one of the intended exposure. That is, the communication with the relevant intention and the fact of exposure are the same; the relevant communication and the putting into effect of the intention coincide. The relevant conduct is confined to the words uttered about his activity with other women. The nature of the preceding communications provide some context, and the nature of the indecent material is relevant to intention and to the objective seriousness of the matter. Obviously, any sexual conduct in relation to children and young persons has to be viewed in a serious light. Attempting to deter others and condemnation are primary considerations. In this case, there are aggravating features, some of which would arise ordinarily, but are reinforced by statute. Samantha can properly be described as a person with a disability and although I do not think it can be considered the defendant was in a position of authority, he was quite clearly in a position of trust bestowed on him by the church and the complainant’s parents. That trust was breached. It is not clear what long-term effect, if any, this has had on Samantha, but it was plainly distressing for her at the time. All of that said, I accept counsel’s submission that this offence is at the lower end of the scale of seriousness relating to this particular crime. I accept that the incident was opportunistic, although I do not lose sight of the course the preceding conversations had taken. There were no pictures or videos transmitted or shown and no invitations to sexual acts, or discussions of sexual contact with Samantha herself. Such things often feature in crimes of this type. At no stage was she threatened or invited not to say anything about what had been happening or not to report the particular incident. I take into account the loss of the position within the church and the resultant financial loss. I take into account the very early plea of guilty, which, for a number of reasons, entitles the defendant to a fair degree of leniency. As well as providing vindication and saving Samantha from giving evidence, and as having broader utilitarian value, I am satisfied it is indicative of insight and genuine remorse.
Mr Schnetler, I have set out the facts of the matter, your personal circumstances and what I see to be the relevant considerations. I repeat that court’s need to do what they can to prevent unlawful sexual interaction between adults and underage persons. Although it is said to have been a naive and opportunistic incident, I remain at a loss as what motivated you to do what you did. Fortunately for everybody, it was not as graphic as it might have been, as other cases show. I have carefully considered the sentence that I think is appropriate. In the end I think it can be dealt with in accordance with the submission made by your counsel. You are convicted. I make a community correction order for a period of 18 months. There will be a condition of that order you perform 105 hours of community service within that period. There will be a further condition that you attend educational and other programs, and psychological or psychiatric assessment or treatment or as may be directed by a probation officer. You will have to report to a probation officer in person or by telephone at 75 Liverpool Street Hobart by 5pm tomorrow. On the whole of the material, I cannot be satisfied that you do not pose any relevant risk within the meaning of the Community Protection (Offender Reporting) Act, although I do not think the risk is great. I will make the reporting order the minimum that I see necessary. I order that your name be placed on the register and that you comply with the reporting obligations under that Act for a period for two years.