STATE OF TASMANIA v NATHAN VICTOR LOCKLEY 22 FEBRUARY 2024
COMMENTS ON PASSING SENTENCE ESTCOURT J
The defendant, Nathan Victor Lockley, has pleaded guilty to one count of possession of child exploitation material. I have also agreed to deal with charges 2 to 4 on complaint 1051/23 pursuant to s 385A of the Criminal Code. Those charges are two charges of failing to comply with a community protection order and one charge of wilfully obstructing a police officer.
The defendant was aged 40 years old at the relevant time and resided at Flint House in New Town. On 12 May 2022, he was notified of his reporting obligations under the Community Protection (Offender Reporting) Act 2005. On Saturday, 7 January 2023, at approximately 8:15pm, members of Tasmania Police attended Flint House to conduct a scheduled Community Protection Offender Reporting check upon the defendant. During the check, the defendant was asked to present his mobile phone. He informed police that he had left his mobile phone in his truck at work and he could not present it. Police then attempted to call the defendant’s mobile phone. Upon becoming aware of this, the defendant ran inside his room and attempted to conceal his black Samsung Galaxy, which was plugged into a charger just inside the doorway.
Police followed the defendant and observed him attempting to conceal the mobile phone among items on top of a table just inside the door. They attempted to seize the mobile phone, however the defendant picked it up and attempted to close some of the pages open on the screen by swiping the screen in an upward motion. He held onto the mobile phone and failed to hand it over, physically trying to hold it back from police before it was physically removed from his hands.
A brief examination of the phone by police showed that it had a large quantity of child exploitation material visible and saved to the device. It also showed that the defendant had started a new download approximately 10 minutes before police arrived.
He was placed under arrest and conveyed to the Hobart Police Station where he was detained for further investigation. He was later taken back to his address where a search was conducted and a number of items were located, which included:
(a) Male children’s swimwear;
(b) Baby nappies;
(c) Baby dummies;
(d) A number of teddy bears; and
(e) A “Re-Born” baby doll, which is a hyper realistic silicon doll of a baby humanoid with the appearance of an Avatar.
The defendant informed police that he had undertaken rehabilitation programs at the prison during pervious stays, however they appeared to have had minimal effect.
On Tuesday 10 January 2023, his mobile phone was examined by police and a quantity of 1,001 unique child exploitation material files were located. The contents of the mobile phone were viewed under the Australian Child Abuse Categorisation Schema. The majority of the files located on the mobile phone were categorised as category 1 (real children, pre-pubescent, less than 13 years old). The majority of the images depicted pre-pubescent children involved in sexual acts with adults.
A number but not all images videos and images depicted penetration. Almost all of the images and videos were of young boys in sexual poses, engaged in sexual activity with other young boys or with adult males. There were a number of different young boys. There was no additional cruelty to the children.
On this day, police also attempted to log into the defendant’s TikTok account on a secure police device, using the defendant’s login details as he had provided. The provided email and password combination failed to login into the defendant’s account. Also prior to his arrest, he had provided different details to this TikTok account which had failed to work and prevented police access.
The State makes application that the following item be forfeited to the State pursuant to s 130F(4) of the Criminal Code:
- Black Samsung mobile phone in black case – item no. 1 on property seizure record receipt 187864.
I make that order.
Section 6 of the Community Protection (Offender Reporting) Act 2005 applies to this matter. Possession of child exploitation material is a class 1 offence and the maximum reporting period is 8 years. The defendant has not spent any time in custody in respect of these matters. The defendant obviously has relevant prior convictions as the breaches of the community protection order are, of course, related.
The defendant has mental health issues which were undiagnosed for many years. He had early problems with alcohol from the young age of 12. His regular heavy drinking ceased in 2018 and his only relapse, which lasted two weeks, was from around Christmas 2022 until 7 January 2023 which was the date of his arrest by police for the current matters. No further alcohol consumption has occurred after 7 January 2023. That one relapse, I am told, was related to stressors at Flint House.
He had resided at Flint House after his release from prison and was approached and accepted the role of House Manager at Flint House. His duties included interactions with TasPol, Prison, Mental Health Wards, pastoral care of other residents, dispute resolution between other residents, policing of other resident behaviour in an environment without rules as to the consumption of drugs and alcohol.
His condition is now fully understood as an alcohol abuse disorder and is being properly treated through counselling and is well managed. He had resettled at Bethlehem House, which is a ‘dry’ house and had been entirely sober since 7 January 2023. However, he lost his accommodation there and has since been without accommodation. He in unemployed. However, he has continued his abstinence from alcohol.
In relation to the factors which bear on the objective seriousness of the accused’s offending, the State relies on the factors enumerated by Justice Porter in DPP v. Latham (2009) 19 Tas R 281 at [34].
Relevant sentencing factors include the need for general deterrence, denunciation and protection of the community; and the need for personal deterrence especially given the defendant’s previous offending.
Notwithstanding the seriousness of his offending and in particular subsequent offending and breaches of his community protection order, I am of the view that the circumstances I have just related warrant a sentence short of actual imprisonment.
The defendant is sentenced to a period of two years’ imprisonment, which sentence I wholly suspend on condition that he commit no offence punishable by imprisonment for a period of three years.
Pursuant to the Community Protection (Offender Reporting) Act 2005, I make an order that the defendant’s name be enrolled on the register pursuant to the Act, assuming it is not already, and that he comply with the reporting conditions under the Act for a period of eight years, to date from today, or from the expiration of any current period of registration, whichever is appropriate.