The South Australian Court of Appeal has dismissed an appeal by former Yorke Peninsula teacher Thomas Ackland, who sought to reduce his 14-year prison sentence for child sex offences. In this decision, the Court recognised that online communication offending can blur the lines between physical and non-physical abuse, with both forms causing significant harm to victims. The judgment underscores the need for deterrence in cases involving child abuse over the internet and highlights the devastating impact such crimes have on victims, their families, and the wider community.

Ackland, once a respected and admired teacher in a rural South Australian school, was convicted of 14 counts of child sex offences against 14 boys aged between 12 and 17. His crimes included one count of sexual abuse of a child and 13 counts of aggravated communication with a child for a prurient purpose. The Court described his actions as a “brazen, persistent and predatory” breach of trust, noting that his offending spanned over three years and only ceased upon his arrest in 2021.

The Evolving Nature of Abuse Offences in the Digital Age

The Court’s decision reflects the evolving nature of child abuse offences in the digital age, where technology and social media platforms like Snapchat have become tools for exploitation. Ackland used these platforms to groom his victims, sending explicit images and videos while coercing the boys to reciprocate. Despite warnings from his school and police, he continued his predatory behaviour, exploiting his position of trust as a teacher.

The Court emphasised that communication offending is not necessarily less harmful than physical contact offending. It observed that this case demonstrates the dangers of assuming that non-physical abuse causes less harm. The Court stated: “Communication offending is not necessarily less harmful than contact offending to victims, their families and the community.”

In its judgment, the Court referred to an earlier case of Brooker v The King, that highlighted the unique challenges posed by online offending. The Court in Brooker observed that the global reach of digital platforms complicates efforts to identify and protect victims, as offenders can exploit the anonymity and accessibility of the internet to target children across jurisdictions.

The judgment in Brooker emphasised that online communication offending blurs the lines between physical and non-physical abuse, with both forms capable of causing profound harm. The Court noted that offenders often use digital tools to groom victims, disseminate child exploitation material, and engage in communication offending that can have devastating psychological and emotional impacts. It recognised that the internet has become a tool for offenders to maintain control over victims, perpetuate abuse, and share exploitative material with others, thereby amplifying the harm caused.

In Ackland’s case, the Court drew on these observations to underscore the dangers of assuming that communication-based offences are less harmful than physical contact offences. The Court stated: “The anonymity and accessibility of the internet have transformed the nature of child sexual abuse, allowing offenders to exploit vulnerable children in ways that are pervasive, insidious, and difficult to detect.” It further noted that such offending is not confined to the immediate victim but extends to their families and the broader community, as the dissemination of exploitative material perpetuates harm long after the initial offence.

The Court reinforced the need for sentencing courts to address the evolving nature of child abuse offences in the digital age. It stressed the importance of deterrence, denunciation, and community protection in cases involving online offending, recognising that technology has created new avenues for exploitation that demand a firm judicial response.

A Breach of Trust with Far-Reaching Consequences

Ackland’s crimes shocked the local community, where he had been seen as a trusted and popular teacher. The Court noted that his offending extended beyond the immediate harm to his victims, causing significant distress to their families and undermining trust within the broader community. The sentencing judge remarked: “You betrayed the position of authority and trust reposed in you by the school, the parents of the students you abused and of course, the very students themselves, who you were responsible for teaching and providing pastoral care to and not grooming and then abusing them for your own sexual gratification.”

While Ackland argued that his sentence was manifestly excessive, the Court found that it was within the bounds of sound judicial discretion. It noted that the sentence was necessary to protect the community and denounce serious child sexual abuse offending. The Court concluded: “Each offence was committed by a teacher in a position of trust and authority toward students under his care… The appellant engaged in an egregious breach of the trust and confidence reposed in him by the school and the broader community.”

Websters Lawyers, representing several survivors of Ackland’s abuse in civil actions, have confirmed that while the Court’s decision provides some relief to survivors and their families, they continue to pursue justice through claims for damages arising from Ackland’s crimes. Many of those Ackland abused have yet to come forward, and others against whom he offended still have the right to lodge a civil claim. Survivors and their families can contact Websters Lawyers for assistance in seeking justice and accountability.

Ackland v The King [2025] SASCA 15

https://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/viewdoc/au/cases/sa/SASCA/2025/15.html