THE KING v ADAM GRAHAM WHITFORD 9 SEPTEMBER 2025
COMMENT ON PASSING SENTENCE SHANAHAN CJ
Adam Graham Whitford you have pleaded guilty to two indictable offences against the Commonwealth Criminal Code.
The first matter is an offence against s 471.12 of the Criminal Code (Cth) (“Criminal Code”), that between about the 18th and the 29th of October 2021, you used a postal service in a way that reasonable persons would regard as being offensive. The maximum penalty on the first account is 2 years’ imprisonment and or a fine of $26,400.
The second matter is an offence against s 474.17A(1) and s 11.2(1) of the Criminal Code, that on or about 26 October 2021, you counselled or procured the commission of an offence by another person, namely, that another person used a carriage service in a way that reasonable persons would regard as being offensive and involved the transmission of private sexual material. The maximum penalty on the second count is five years imprisonment and/or a fine of $66,600.
The offending occurred in or about October 2021. This matter has, through a combination of circumstances, taken a very lengthy time to proceed to sentence. You pleaded guilty to the charges in July 2023. I am told by the Commonwealth that your plea came late and that you absconded for periods of time whilst on bail, further that you did not confirm that the matter could proceed to a final resolution until 22 May 2025, which has resulted in the prolongation of these proceedings (Transcript 7 August 2025 125-16).
Today’s hearing is the culmination of what has been a significantly delayed process. Care has to be taken when there is delay between relevant offending, plea and sentence, that is because it can affect the efficacy or viability of available sentencing dispositions, and colour the prism through which offending is seen. It is for that reason that I set out some of your communications at the material time and the victim impact statements.
You and the complainant had been in a relationship for approximately four and a half years. In February of 2021 you were engaged. Your relationship ended in early September 2021. You lived with the complainant during the course of your relationship, you did not have children together. In September 2021 the complainant was a teacher’s aide at the Campania District School and had been working there for the previous nine years.
The first matter relates to two letters. After your relationship with the complainant ended, you sent two anonymous letters one to the Department of Education and the second to the school at which the complainant then worked. Those letters enclosed topless photos of the complainant and alleged that the complainant had been sending them to a student.
The second matter relates to text messages. You caused text messages to be sent to a school staff member’s phone. The text messages attached the same topless photo as had been enclosed in the letters, as well as another photo designed to humiliate the complainant, again alleging that the images had been sent to a child.
The offending occurred following the break up of your relationship with the complainant.
Following your breakup, the complainant had regular and ongoing issues with you.
On 10 September 2021, the complainant was asleep in bed when she was woken at 5.30 am by you standing next to her, which scared her. She had not given you the code to the locked key box for entry to her house. You refused to leave for a long time. Before finally leaving you called the complainant a “slut”, and alleged she was having an affair.
Several days later, the complainant was at home in her garden when she heard rustling and saw you standing on the roof of the garden shed.
On 11 October 2021, at around 3.30am, the complainant was woken by knocking at her bedroom window. You were standing outside. You again accused her of having an affair and called her a “slut”. It took a long time before you agreed to leave.
On 13 October 2021, the complainant blocked you on Facebook Messenger and on her mobile. She then received multiple emails to her personal and work emails in which you repeatedly accused her of cheating and having other relationships.
At that time you regularly exchanged messages with a person called “Becca”. Between 11 and 18 October 2021, exchange of messages included the following:
- From 11 October 2021 in relation to the complainant you said, you had her “titty-pic” and, “If she bags me out on Facey, let me know as I’ll put it all out for everyone to see”.
- On 14 October 2021, you said: “See cause she’s done wrong. I’m going to destroy her life as she knows it.”
- Between the 16th and 17th of October 2021, you asked if Becca had a printer, which she confirmed she did but did not have paper. You confirmed what type it required and said he would come and use it at some point. You confirmed she had envelopes. You said to Becca, “Make sure you rip up the stuff we printed out”.
At this time you regularly exchanged messages with your ex-girlfriend, Amy.
On the 22nd of October 2021, you asked Amy to help you with something. You said, you had three “dodgy snaps” sent from the complainant, and you wanted to get them out there without anyone knowing it was you.
You explained, you did not want the complainant to know it came from you as she would go to the police, and you cannot get into trouble. But you said, you would tell her face to face. You asked whether she still had the other phone numbers which she did not. She asked how you wanted it sent, whether by SMS, email or social media. And you said: “Pretty much do one and it will go bad. But all if we can, for sure.”
Count 1 is a “rolled up charge”. Around the week of 18 October 2021, you prepared and sent two typed letters enclosing the photographs. One to the Department of Education, and one to the principal of Campania District School. The letters both falsely implied that the complainant sent Snapchat messages to a student, which included a topless photograph as well as other explicit photographs.
In the week of 25 October 2021, the Department of Education received a letter which purported to be from an unidentified parent of an unidentified student at the school. The letter enclosed a printout of a screenshot of a phone which showed a topless photo of the complainant. It appeared to be from an app and the following text on it:
“Here now. Stop asking please.”
and:
“Please delete, I can get into a lot of trouble, school and sick your mum et cetera.”
The letter said the photo was of the complainant.
The letter said the complainant and the author’s child were friends on Snapchat, and the child asked for things “I should not see from a teacher.” It said, after a few knock backs from the complainant he got what he wanted and so much more.
The author claimed to have 10 similar photos of the complainant. The letter stated that the author was not asking for the complainant to be named and shamed, but was sending the material to protect other children and stated, “The photos will never be seen if the right actions are taken. If my expectations aren’t met, I’ll take it further”.
On either 27 October or 29 October 2021, the principal of Campania District School received a letter addressed to him. It purported to be from an unidentified parent of an unidentified student at the school.
The letter alleged that the complainant had been sending photos – Snapchats to the author’s child. It referred to the complainant as, “A very dirty minded lady and sick. Should not be in care of our children”.
The letter enclosed a topless photo of the complainant which had text written across it, which said, “Please delete, I can get into a lot of trouble, school and your mum, et cetera”. This was the same photo and caption which was sent in the letters.
The author of the letter referred to other photos received from the complainant, including her in her underwear laying on a bed as “wet after shower. Filth”. The author commented, “Thankfully it ended before it got physical”.
The letter stated that the author would, “Burn the photos if this was handled quickly and if I’m not happy with the outcome. I’ll send all the photos and messages to the higher authority.”
On 26 October 2021, an administrative staff member of Campania District School received messages and photos from a mobile number ending in 420. She did not recognise this phone number.
The first photo was the same one which was enclosed in the letters. A topless photo of the complainant with text on top of it. Under this photo, the text message said, “Campania teacher”.
The second photo was of the faces of the complainant and another identified person. It appeared to be a screenshot from an app and had text overlayed which read, “Would you do us both and who would you want to cum in?”
You caused these text messages and images to be sent by another person’s phone to the staff member’s phone.
On 25 October 2021, the school’s business manager called the complainant to tell her that she was being stood down. She was told it was due to a communication sent from an anonymous source to the Department of Education.
It was alleged she was in a relationship with a student, and it contained a topless photograph of her. The complainant was suspended from the school for the duration of the investigation into the allegation of sexual misconduct. The complainant had only ever sent a topless picture to you. The complainant reported the incident to Bridgewater police.
On 26 October 2021, the same photo was sent from an unknown mobile number to a staff member at the school. On the same day, you sent a message to Amy saying, “Morning, did you receive an [sic] photo message? Amy responded that she had, and: “It’s gone out to a few, I’m guessing. So, you’re having a happy day? God she is gross.” You responded, “Nothing to go with me, that one, lol. See what comes of it today.”
On 26 October 2021, you were arrested and cautioned. You participated in an electronic record of interview. You denied sending any form of communication involving naked photos of the complainant to the Department of Education, Campania District School or other persons. Your mobile phone was seized for forensic examination and a family violence order was issued. In January 2022, a forensic examination showed that your fingerprints were on the letter to the Department of Education.
The complainant provided a victim impact statement dated 18 June 2025, excerpts include:
I was in a relationship with Adam Whitford for four years, starting the year of 2017 to the 8th of September 2021. We got engaged in February 2021 and were planning to live together later in that year, as I had my own house, and he was in a rental. After a relationship that had its complications, I made the decision to leave this relationship on the 8th of September 2021.
On the 25th of October 2021 … [I] … received a call from school (workplace), along with a letter from the Department of Education stating that the letter said I was accused of “Allegations of Sexual Misconduct”. Sending a topless photograph of myself to a student via online communication.
I went into a massive panic attack as to what was going to happen and what do I need to do? I went straight to the Bridgewater police station feeling sick, worried and nervous, I’d never been to a police station for anything like this before …
Tas Police had already – had contact with the Department of Education from the letters and info they had already received. I left the station with tears in my eyes, I was an emotional wreck, as I didn’t know what was to come. …
Two days later, I had to have meeting with my Principal so he could formally stand me down from my position. He spoke about the content he had received of me, and also of my friend whose photo was also used. I felt myself sliding down the chair in an utter mess. How could he do this to me? I knew from the start it was him because I remember sending this photo to his mobile device, Snapchat account. That he had then had to have saved. He has made this up to hurt me for leaving him. Why would anyone think of doing this sickening – sickening malicious letter and contacting other people with this content?…
I wasn’t allowed on any sites of the Education Department. Was I ever going to be able to volunteer at the boy’s football games, as my Working With Children card that I had paid for, for my work was put on hold. Was I ever going to have one again? Will I ever trust a man again? To open up and share love. Was I going to be labelled as a sex offender? Was I ever going to be able to work again. All this was going through my head.
I started to have panic attacks and couldn’t be home by myself. I ended up at the doctors for sleeping pills and put on anxiety medication. A health team was put in place for me by the doctors. … My days were of doctor visit – doctor visitors, friends taking me to account for counselling. It was all trauma that I still struggle with today.
The amount of money I have spent trying to get my mental health right. Family and friends who have stopped their lives to help me. I was investigated by … the Education Department, stood down from my job until I was found not guilty. … I spent months going through info to clear my name: all the emails, text messages, Facebook messages he had sent me, I had to find something. I felt like I was going crazy.
I couldn’t tell anyone from my workplace this has happened, why it was getting investigated. … I had a friend pick my youngest son up to take him to and from school as I wasn’t allowed on a department-owned site. I missed assemblies, running carnivals, and seeing friends through his school
…
I’m utterly devastated and totally humiliated that an intimate photograph of myself that I’d sent privately to someone I was in a committed relationship with at the time, has been distributed to my workplace. Along with the embarrassment, a sickening feeling that now holds with me every day when I see people that have seen this photography.
…
To think this has all happened four years ago, and I am now only getting closure at this. I’ve waited so long for this to be finished and put behind me. Fighting for my job, flighting to hold myself together …
The amount of time spent ringing support lines, getting a counsellor that I still have contact with today and doctor appointments. … A massive amount of time and money spent on years of getting this finished.
In conclusion, I feel that Mr Whitford had a lot of revenge for me. When he left the State, it was a feeling I didn’t have to see him again but wanted to him to plead guilty for these horrific events I have been through for four years. If he only did this three years ago and this would all …[have] … been done. Now this is almost over, and I have said this, I’m still wondering, will he target me, or will he get someone else to do this again? I just want to move on with my life and my very successful career and loving supporting family and friends. Be safe in my own community and never think of this, along with this relationship, ever.
The Crown’s ultimate submission is that no other sentence than a term of immediate imprisonment is appropriate, being one of three years or less, which would require a recognisance release order. I was told at the sentencing hearing that you had, at that time, spent 144 days in custody in relation to this matter, and have been in custody since 17 March 2025.
The Crown characterised your offending as vindictive and calculated. It is submitted that count one is a serious example of this kind of offending. It was submitted that the offending was designed to hurt the complainant, damage her employment and cause her profound embarrassment. It is said that your conduct is at the high end of this kind of offending; that being postal service offences. For the second count the submission was that the offending was at least in the moderate range.
The Crown accepts that your plea has a utilitarian value, albeit that it was not early. Submissions were made in respect of specific and general deterrence.
The Crown submitted that you have relevant prior convictions. I was told that it is of note you were convicted in March 2025 of numerous family violence order breaches involving sending text messages, some of which were abusive, albeit involving a different complainant. I was also told that there are relevant convictions for common assault and trespass.
The Crown accepts that you have expressed remorse, but says that I should be careful in terms of any purported connection between your drug use and that this Court ought to treat those sorts of statements with a degree of caution as they are self-reported. In that regard I note that the issues you have had with family violence appear to be reasonably consistent and to have continued after your completion of the MERIT Program in February 2024.
I received a Home Detention Assessment report that states that you are unsuitable for community-based supervision, suitable for community service and suitable for a home detention order.
You reported a positive and supportive childhood although witnessing your parents’ alcohol and cannabis use as well as violent arguments. You disclosed a positive relationship with your parents continuing after they separated in 2020 and you continue to have weekly telephone contact.
You report being single. The report contains an account of your troubled relationships with your former partners. The Safe At Home Information System (“SIMS”) indicates family violence incidents between you and two former partners. First, four family violence and three family argument incidents between July 2019 and March 2024. On 24 March 2025 a Family Violence Order of 12 months was imposed on you.
There also appears to be an interim family violence order in place pending the resolution of these proceedings. Second, somewhat earlier there were three family violence and three family argument incidents between you and a different former partner between October 2021 and March 2023. Ultimately I clarified the timing of this reported offending with counsel, and I will return to that shortly.
You successfully complete grade 12 at Claremont College and have done a four year carpentry and joinery apprenticeship.
You have sought support with regard to your cannabis and methylamphetamine use. You have completed the Magistrates Early Referral Into Treatment program (“Merit Program”) in NSW from 2 February 2024.
In mitigation I was given some detail about the MERIT Program which you have completed. I was told that it has been hard work on your part to remain clean and sober since completion of the MERIT program.
It was put on your behalf that despite the unsuitability recommendation in the Home Detention Assessment report in respect of a community-based supervision order, making such an order with a requirement that you undertake, or attend and undertake, the family violence offender intervention program would be a sensible step.
It was submitted that the characterisation that this offending as at the more serious end of postal offences does not marry up with authorities when one compares it to terrorist and homicide threats.
I was told that your contrition and remorse are genuine. As I understood the Commonwealth’s submission that was not contested, rather it was put that the link between drug use and offending should be treated with caution as it was based on self-reporting. The Home Detention Report states in reference to you, “He conveyed deep shame and remorse for his actions, recognising he’d let down all those affected. He affirmed his belief he is deserving of punishment for his behaviour.”
I accept that you have demonstrated shame, remorse and contrition. I consider that your offending is not at the highest end of the range but I accept the Commonwealth’s submission that was vindictive and calculated. I accept that it is a serious example of this kind of offending because of its nature and your obvious intention to harm the complainant and her employment. In that regard your counsel accepted that the complainant will continue to feel the consequences of your offending for years to come, and long after any sentence is completed here. That matter was properly conceded.
It was pointed out that a home detention order cannot be backdated.
I was told that you are now 40 now and single. When you are in the community, you are now the full-time carer for your 15-year-old son. You also care for your 70 year old father, who has severe bipolar disorder. In 2018 your brother died of cancer. Your parents separated in 2020, and about that time you became your father’s full time carer. I am told that is when your methylamphetamine use began. Your counsel advanced the proposition that your offending sprang from this time and is associated with your drug use.
I inquired of your counsel to try and clarify whether you were still using methamphetamine when you had subsequent breaches of family violence orders. I was told that your family violence breaches were all linked to methylamphetamine use. I was told that use ceased following your completion of the MERIT program and when you were in custody in New South Wales, and that’s the point at which you were able to break the cycle of illicit drug use.
I was told that your breaches after February 2024 were breaches of bail, such as failing to report.
The Commonwealth confirmed that the last family violence order breach for which you have been convicted was 25 August 2023, and the relevant court date for those proceedings was March 2025.
I was told that your prospects are good, and that it’s the completion of that program and the 18 months of abstinence that demonstrate your willingness to rehabilitate, combined with some insight into your offending.
Your counsel said, on your behalf that if there’s a prison term, it is to be backdated to 24 March.
I have heard submissions on comparative sentences from both the Commonwealth and your counsel.
Adam Graham Whitford, I convict you on both counts. I find that you sent, or organised to have sent, deeply offensive private sexual images to both the Department of Education and the Principal of the Campania District School. Your actions were intended to cause the complainant distress, humiliation and embarrassment, to threaten her employment and to punish her.
Your offending was planned, calculated, vicious and sustained. It was a serious example of this type of offending albeit I do not accept the submission that the offending in count 1 was at the highest end of the range.
I have taken into account your remorse and contrition and your attempts to wean yourself from drug use by completing the MERIT Program.
The seriousness of the offending coupled with the need for personal and general deterrence requires an immediate term of imprisonment. I impose a single sentence in respect of both counts. I sentence you to 18 months immediate imprisonment backdated to 24 March 2025 to be released after serving 9 months and entering into a recognisance to be of good behaviour for the remaining term, with an undertaking in the sum of $5000.