CrimePsych

As the vast majority of you will likely know, since the inception of the internet, sexual predators have had another ‘safer’ avenue in which they could prowl for victims. But thankfully, our law enforcement agencies as well as various not-for-profit organisations have been as on top of things as they can, running undercover stings to the best of their abilities (such as those run by Perverted Justice in conjunction with NBC’s Dateline and local law enforcement agencies).

But being here in Australia, has always made me wonder what our law enforcement agencies are doing for us – i’ve been unable to find any civilian organisations that do a similar job as Perverted Justice does, but it’s reassuring to know that the Australian Federal Police conduct their own undercover online stings (the AFP is similar to the FBI but with different responsibilities).

Recently an Indian national, in Australia on a student visa studying his Master’s degree was sentenced to a maximum of 4 years in prison and personally i’m glad to see that here in this country the laws are heavy enough to impose custodial sentences on first time sexual offenders. What follows is a major extract of the presiding judges judgment in the matter:

JUDGMENT

1. I am sentencing Shashank Singh for a crime created under the laws made by the Australian Parliament. Section 474.26 of the Criminal Code 1995 of the Commonwealth creates an offence of using carriage service to procure persons under sixteen to engage in sexual activity. The offence is committed by a person who is an adult, namely someone over eighteen. Parliament has fixed a maximum penalty of fifteen years imprisonment to that crime.

2. It is important to set out briefly what happened that brought about Mr Singh’s conviction for this offence. He used a computer to enter an online chat room. In the chat room he commenced communicating with a person that he understood to be a fourteen year old girl. In fact the person was an undercover operative with the Australian Federal Police. That makes no difference to the person being able to commit the crime.

3. Over a period of a week or two he had online discussions with this person he understood to be a fourteen year old school girl. There were three significant discussions. In the first, which occurred on 3 April 2008, it was made clear to him that the person that he was dealing with was a fourteen year old girl. After about half an hour of commencing the communication he asked this person he thought was a fourteen year old girl what she thought about sex. She replied that she had never done sex before. He proceeded to immediately ask her about girls being sucked or their genitals being fingered or kissed. At the same time he enquired of the girl whether she was free to meet. He added that he liked girls’ breasts and indicated a desire to meet her.

4. The next extensive communication was on 7 April 2008. When I refer to the girl that is an expression which I use to encompass the fact that Mr Singh thought that he was communicating with a girl but it also encompasses the fact that it was an undercover police operative. The girl told him that she was in class and had been “busted big time” by her teacher for using a mobile phone text message in class. She repeated that she was fourteen years old. Mr Singh proceeded to ask her about whether she had seen any sex movies, she said “not really.” In response to a question about whether she had held a dick in her hand, she repeated that she had never been engaged in sex before. Mr Singh, later in the communication, asked whether the girl would like it if he sucked her in the nude and kissed her around her vagina and fingered it as well. During the same communication he asked her to do something for him at that very time. He asked her to remove her bra and to try to suck her nipple and he also encouraged her to masturbate herself. He repeated a request for a desire to meet with the girl.

5. The final extensive communication was on 11 April 2008. Early in the communication he raised the issue of meeting on that very day. He was reminded that she was fourteen years old. He asked her questions such as whether she had hair in her genital area. He also repeated his question about whether she had seen a sex movie and he was told by the girl “not really.” He then directed her to what appears to be a porn site and encouraged her to watch. It is then apparent – so far as he was concerned – that the girl was watching what was displayed on this porn site that he had given her the reference to. For example she responded when he asked what she could see on her screen “lot of naughty sex pics.” He encouraged her to watch one which he described as “a girl sucking dick.” He added a short time later “now ya know how to suck dick.” Then he encouraged her to “watch other one in which guy sucking girl’s pussy.” The girl asked questions which were obvious references to images of semen displayed on whatever it was that she was watching. The question suggested that she did not know what it was. Mr Singh proceeded to try to explain what it was.

6. Later on in the same communication he suggested that the two of them have a shower together and when she said that she was not sure because she had not done it before, he said for her not to worry because it was great fun and there was nothing wrong with it, adding that she should just have faith in him.

7. Before he could meet with this fictitious girl Mr Singh was arrested on 14 April 2008 and charged with this offence. He was charged after quite an extensive interview. The transcript of the interview discloses that Mr Singh acknowledged the communication between himself and the girl but he insisted that he did not know that she was fourteen, or at least did not accept her assertion that she was fourteen. His view was that what was wrong was actually engaging in sex with a fourteen year old without clearly acknowledging that what he had been doing online was also criminal.

8. After he was charged Mr Singh pleaded not guilty. After a trial before me and a jury the jury found him guilty and, if I did not do so at the time, I now convict him of the offence of using a carriage service to procure a person under sixteen for sexual activity against s 474.26(1)of the Criminal Code of the Commonwealth.

9. He has spent some one hundred and thirty-eight days in custody up till now. Mr Williams who appeared as Crown Prosecutor and Mr Hancock who appeared at the trial and on sentence for Mr Singh both agree that if I elect to sentence him to a period of custody – which I add both parties acknowledge is an appropriate sentence – and to backdate the sentence to take into account the time he has spent in custody, then the sentence should be dated from 2 January 2009.

10. It is important to make findings about the objective seriousness of this crime. I regard as significant that as part of the exchanges Mr Singh actually directed this person he thought was a fourteen year old school girl to open and view a website containing pornography. In addition, I regard it as serious that he was urging her to engage in sexual activity with herself.

11. Mr Williams, in his helpful written submissions, has pointed to a number of factors which demonstrate the objective seriousness of the offence. The difference in age was some fifteen years between Mr Singh’s age of twenty-nine and the age of the fictitious girl of fourteen. That is not as wide a gap as the gap in some other cases, but it is in my opinion a significant one. So far as Mr Singh was concerned he was over ten years into his adult life and the person that he was dealing with was some four years short of becoming an adult and still at school.

12. I accept the submission that what Mr Singh engaged in was a “sustained, persistent and calculated course of predatory conduct.” I think that submission is well founded so far as the evidence which I have referred to of the communication between Mr Singh and the girl. He was particularly persistent in his attempts to arrange a meeting.

13. I find that, as was submitted, the communications establish a willingness on the part of Mr Singh to corrupt someone who was sexually inexperienced. This is demonstrated in my opinion not only by his sexual references but in particular by his taking the girl to the porn site and encouraging her to masturbate. He has proposed specific sexual activity between them, namely that they should shower together.

14. On the other hand Mr Hancock who appears for Mr Singh draws my attention to aspects of the behaviour which indicate that its seriousness might be lessened somewhat. He points out, which is true, that this is not a case where a real fourteen year old girl has in fact been corrupted. The crime has still been committed but it would be far worse if the crime involved a real fourteen year old girl. Mr Hancock points out that there was no offer of money involved nor was his client’s computer found to have illegal or inappropriate material on it. Nor did he, the client, have with him any items when he was arrested which might have been used in sexual activity with the girl.

15. I think these are factors which do take the edge off – a little – the seriousness of the offending behaviour. But nevertheless I do regard the behaviour, in this case, as very serious. I think that it falls within the middle of the range of objective seriousness for this kind of offending but at the lower end of that range.

16. It is important to mention some personal features about Mr Singh himself. He was born in India and came to Australia to study. He is well qualified with university qualifications from India and he was undertaking a Master of Information Technology course at the University of New England in this State when he was arrested. He was not able to complete that course, although he had almost finished it, because of his time in custody. His student visa has been revoked and it is likely that he will be deported.

If you would like to read the remainder of this judgment then please feel free to view it here