Criminal Law

Arrest of Former Knox Teacher Exposes The Dangerous Legal Grey Area of Online Predator Vigilantes

In the world of social media, online exploitation is an omniscient threat to children and young people. A former teacher from Knox Grammar, one of Australia’s most prestigious private schools, has exposed this reality after he was convicted for procuring a child for sex over Grindr. But beyond the disturbing nature of the offence itself, the matter has taken on a wider significance because of how it came to light – and what it reveals about a controversial and ostensibly growing phenomenon.

Background

In January, a New South Wales court found William Roberto Gulson, 28, guilty of procuring or grooming a child under 16 for unlawful sexual activity. The charge arose from online communications on the dating app Grindr, in which Gulson engaged in conversation with a profile he was told belonged to a 15-year-old boy.

Rather than the product of a formal operation, the interaction emerged from an informal, amateur sting. The profile was not operated by the police. Instead, it was created by a teenager who told the court they were attempting to identify adults engaging in inappropriate communications with minors. Gulson’s defence — that he believed he was speaking with an adult — was rejected by the magistrate, who found the evidence demonstrated he understood the person was underage. He is due to be sentenced later this year.

The legal outcome itself was relatively straightforward. Under NSW law, communicating with a person believed to be under 16 with the intention of facilitating sexual activity is a serious criminal offence, regardless of whether the child is real. What’s more interesting is the vigilante-style methods the teen used to expose the conduct.

Specifically, the case evokes a novel question within the law that the courts and lawmakers are increasingly forced to confront: when ordinary citizens pose as minors online to expose alleged offenders, are they assisting justice, or undermining it?

The answer appears to be complex.

The Rise of Civilian Predator Hunting

Over the past decade, and particularly in the era of short-form video and livestreaming, civilian “predator hunting” has grown into a global online subculture. Individuals and groups create fake profiles posing as children, engage adults in conversation, collect screenshots or recordings, and often confront suspects publicly. Some publish names and images online while others present their findings to the police.

Supporters of these activities argue they fill a perceived gap in law enforcement resources, describing themselves as motivated by the protection of children and expressing frustration at what they view as slow institutional responses to online grooming.

Their content often attracts significant public support, with videos exposing alleged offenders routinely receiving hundreds of thousands of views and comments praising, thanking, and calling for harsher punishment.

This popularity is not difficult to understand. Few crimes provoke stronger emotional reactions than child sexual exploitation. The desire to protect children is deeply ingrained, and outrage towards offenders is widespread and legitimate.

But the law does not operate on outrage alone; it necessitates procedure and structural safeguards, which both exist within a broader legal framework.

Online Grooming Laws in NSW

Under section 66EB of the Crimes Act 1900 (NSW), a person commits an offence if they communicate with another person, they believe to be under 16, with the intention of facilitating sexual activity involving that child. The maximum penalty is 12 years’ imprisonment. Importantly, the offence does require an actual child victim,not merely intention.

Within this context, it is clear why prosecutions may succeed even when the “child” is a police decoy or, as in the Knox matter, a civilian using a false profile. However, such cases are highly fact-specific.

Risks Associated with Civilian Predator Stings

Whilst police regularly use controlled undercover operations involving trained officers posing as children, these operations are subject to strict protocols designed to ensure evidence is lawfully obtained, and prosecutions are not compromised. Civilian stings, by contrast, operate without oversight, without training, and without legal safeguards.

Unlike police investigators, private individuals are not trained in forensic evidence collection. Material such as screenshots, recordings and chat transcripts may be challenged on grounds that they are incomplete or taken out of context; vulnerable to manipulation, improperly stored or handled or obtained in circumstances raising questions of fairness. If the reliability of evidence cannot be established, then the Court may exclude it or give it reduced weight, potentially weakening the prosecution’s case.

Courts may also retain discretion to exclude evidence where the offending conduct has been improperly induced. For example, if a decoy initiates the sexual content, escalates the conversation, pressures the accused to engage or repeatedly encourages conduct that would not otherwise occur, a court may find that the probative value of the evidence is diminished or that its admission would be unfair to the accused.

Civilians who engage in this sort of vigilante-like behaviour not only compromise the integrity of subsequent prosecution, but they can also incur criminal liability themselves depending on the conduct involved.

Using a Carriage Service to Menace, Harass or Cause Offence

Using a carriage service to menace, harass, or cause offence is a federal criminal offence under section 474.17 of the Criminal Code Act 1995 (Cth), carrying a maximum penalty of 3 to 5 years imprisonment. It involves using phones, the internet, or social media to send messages that a reasonable person would consider threatening, harassing, or offensive, regardless of whether the recipient felt threatened.

This provision has already been used to prosecute so-called “paedophile hunters”. In 2019, Adelaide man Richard Warner was convicted after posting videos of confrontations with adult men he had contacted online while posing as an underage boy. The court found his conduct menacing and harassing, particularly because he publicly identified the men and, in some cases, disclosed their addresses.

Stalking or Intimidation

While police officers and licensed private investigators are legally permitted to surveil, monitor, or follow individuals as part of their duties, civilians who engage in similar conduct may commit criminal offences.

Section 13 of the Crimes (Domestic and Personal Violence) Act 2007 (NSW) makes it an offence to stalk or intimidate another person with the intention of causing them to fear physical or mental harm.

To establish the offence, the prosecution must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that: you stalked or intimidated another person, and you intended to cause them to fear physical or mental harm.

Importantly, it is not necessary that the victim actually experienced fear – the intention to cause fear is sufficient.

Explicit Conversations and Child Abuse Material

Engaging in sexually explicit conversations involving minors may constitute offences relating to child abuse material, even where no real children are involved.

There are numerous state and federal offences relating to child abuse material. At the state level, section 91H of the Crimes Act 1900 (NSW) makes it an offence to produce, disseminate or possess child abuse material, with a maximum penalty of 10 years’ imprisonment.

At the federal level, the Criminal Code Act 1995 (Cth) contains extensive offences prohibiting the production, possession, distribution and access of material that sexualises children.

In R v Jarrold, the NSW Court of Criminal Appeal considered a case where the accused had produced “child pornography” through online chat room communications describing sexual acts with underage boys. The Court held that it was irrelevant whether the communications reflected real events or mere fantasy. The conduct still constituted an offence.

The Bigger Picture 

Evidently, so-called paedophile hunting carries significant legal risks, even where participants believe they are acting with good intentions and even where a prosecution may result.

In all instances, the appropriate course of action is to report any concerns to the police, as they have the authority and resources that effective law enforcement necessitates.