Flawed ACT legislation saw a man acquitted of sending pornographic material to a child because Facebook chat could not be defined as an "electronic means".
Subscribe now for unlimited access.
$0/
(min cost $0)
or signup to continue reading
The case of Billy Tamawiwy, 23, last week highlighted the inadequacy of aspects of the territory's criminal laws designed to deal with the use of the internet to deprave young people.
Tamawiwy stood trial in the ACT Supreme Court accused of an elaborate fraud, in which he set up a fake female Facebook profile with the name "Tayla Edwards", using it to lure teenage boys and trick them into having sex with him.
He was successful with one of his targets, who met up with Tamawiwy for sex, believing doing so would entitle him to sex with the fictional characters of Ms Edwards and her two bisexual friends.
Tamawiwy filmed the intercourse and, after threatening the victim, sent video of their encounter to the man's younger brother, who was a minor, via Facebook chat.
On Thursday, Tamawiwy was found guilty by a jury of sexual intercourse without consent and a number of other offences.
But earlier in the trial, his barrister James Lawton successfully sought to throw out the charge relating to the sending of pornographic material to the victim's younger brother.
That charge is termed in the ACT's Crimes Act as using an electronic means to send or make available pornographic material to a young person.
But the act includes a strangely narrow definition of what can constitute "electronic means".
It defines "electronic means" as simply "email, Internet chat rooms, SMS messages and real time audio/video".
Facebook chat, a popular means of communication, was found not to fit that definition.
Mr Lawton argued that meant the charge could not be proved by the prosecution.
He used the concept of expressio unius, which holds that something not expressly mentioned on a list is assumed not to be covered by the law.
Justice Richard Refshauge subsequently directed the jury to enter a not guilty verdict to that offence.
Director of Public Prosecutions Jon White said his office is now "carefully considering" the ramifications of that decision.
"If necessary the DPP will recommend to the Attorney General that amendments to the legislation be considered to ensure that advances in technology since the original enactment are appropriately reflected," he said.
A spokesman for Attorney-General Simon Corbell said he would welcome advice from the DPP on the issue.
The flaws in ACT law do not make it legal to send such material via Facebook.
Such action would still be prohibited by other offences, including the use of a carriage service to send offensive material, which is a crime under Commonwealth law.
It took a jury a little more than an hour to find Tamawiwy guilty of the other offences.
He had tried to argue he was innocent of the charges of sexual intercourse without consent, because the victim had consented.
The Crown, represented by prosecutor Trent Hickey, said the consent was negated because of Tamawiwy's fraudulent misrepresentations about Ms Edwards, her friends, and their willingness to have sex with the victim.
But Mr Lawton argued the consent was given on the basis of an unfulfilled promise, of sex with Ms Edwards and her friends, rather than a fraudulently misrepresented fact.
He compared that to a cheating husband who promised to his mistress that he would leave his wife to obtain more sex, but then failed to follow through.
Tamawiwy will be sentenced at a later date.
