ADFA Skype sex scandal/ S 474 Crimes Act
Considering Daniel and Dylan received no jail time after being charged under S 474 of the crimes ACT I am wondering what sentence a judge would give me after also being charged also under S474 of the Crimes Act for exposing Systemic corrupt conduct and corruption by Public servants on the internet.
May God Bless the Australian Federal Police for trying their best to fuck me over!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
ADFA Skype sex scandal: Daniel McDonald, Dylan Deblaquiere avoid jail time
Updated
The two men at the centre of the Australian Defence Force Academy Skype scandal have avoided jail time.
Daniel
McDonald, 21, secretly filmed himself having sex with a female cadet
and streamed it live to Dylan Deblaquiere, 21, in a nearby dorm room at
ADFA in Canberra in 2011.Earlier this year a jury found the pair guilty of sending offensive material over the internet without consent.
McDonald was also found guilty of an act of indecency.
In sentencing today in the ACT Supreme Court, Acting Justice John Nield rejected jail time, taking into account the men's ages and prospects of rehabilitation.
"Is imprisonment the only appropriate sentence? I have given this question anxious thought. I have wavered between answering yes and no," he said.
Instead he handed McDonald two 12-month good behaviour bonds, to be served concurrently, and Deblaquiere a single 12-month good behaviour bond. He warned they will go to jail if they breach their orders.
"There has been much media attention to these offences and to the trial. General deterrence has been achieved," he said.
Acting Justice Nield noted that while the Skype transmission was non-violent, published only to a limited audience and was not recorded, it was a substantial violation of the victim's right to privacy.
"To engage in sexual activity in a private setting, one expects that sexual activity to be private. No one expects it to be transmitted to the world at large or even close friends," he said.
"[McDonald] acted intentionally and deliberately to degrade her. He broke his word, breached their friendship, exposed her to humiliation and ridicule. His offence falls above the middle of the range of offences of its kind."
While detailing the facts of the case, Acting Justice Nield noted the pair's actions were vulgar and they had not expressed remorse.
"Neither offender said anything to the complainant when what had happened became known to show regret or remorse for what they did," he said.
"Neither stood up in court after the complainant read her victim impact statement to say they regret what they did."
No comments:
Post a Comment