Child grooming or procuring laws: Entrapment by vigilante paedophile hunting

Mr. Beeby was charged for the offence of procuring or grooming a fictitious child pursuant to section 66EB(2) of the Crimes Act 1900 (NSW). This offence carries up to 12 years imprisonment if a person is found guilty of procuring a child (or a fictitious child) between the age of 14 and less than 16 years with the intention of procuring the child for unlawful sexual activity with that person, even if that person is not a real person.

Mr. Beeby, known as the defendant, used his Grindr account from his mobile phone to exchange messages with a person who purported to be a male named "Jeremy" between 11:30pm on 24 January 2024 and 12:30am on 25 January 2024. "Jeremy" expressed an interest in a sexual encounter with the defendant through the Grindr exchange of messages. The defendant reciprocated that interest. "Jeremy" sent a picture of his penis to the defendant's request. The defendant then invited "Jeremy" to his home for a sexual encounter.

Unknown to the defendant, "Jeremy" was not a child, but an adult vigilante who pretended to be a child for purposes of paedophile hunting to entrap and assault the defendant.

The defendant, during the exchange of Grindr messages, made clear that his age is 15 years.

CCTV footage captured four people arriving at the defendant's home that night. When the defendant let in a person who he thought was "Jeremy", the defendant was punched in the face and assaulted. 3 more people appeared who joined in on the assault against the defendant that night. The defendant assaulted and robbed before complaining about the incident to police when he gave a version inconsistent to that reflected in the earlier Grindr communications that he did not disclose.

The exchange of the Grindr messages was critical to the prosecution case against the defendant, such that without it would result in there being insufficient evidence to prosecute the defendant.

Following police investigation, police discovered the Grindr messaged between the defendant and "Jeremy" which led to the defendant's arrest and charge.

During the hearing listed before the Gosford Local Court, the Local Court Magistrate ultimately dismissed the charge against the defendant after having made a ruling to exclude the exchange of the Grindr messages between the defendant and "Jeremy" under section 138 of the Evidence Act 1995 (NSW). The Local Court made this ruling on the basis that "Jeremy's conduct reflected in the Grindr messages amounted to an offence of inciting, aiding or encouraging a crime under section 2 of the Crimes Prevention Act 1916 (NSW) carrying up to 6 months imprisonment as a "summary offence" under section 4 of the Crime Prevention Act 1916 (NSW). The Local Court reasoning to exclude it, amongst other things, was due to "Jeremy's" illegal conduct of inciting the section 66EB(2) offence that he is charged with, which favoured excluding the evidence on public policy grounds after balancing the public interest of convicting wrongdoers on the one hand and ensuring not to encourage wrongdoing on the other hand.

The Director of Public Prosecution (DPP) appealed the Local Court's decision to the Supreme Court in the case of DPP (NSW) v Beeby [2025] NSWSC 1307. The Supreme Court partly agreed with the DPP and remitted the case back to the Local Court to be dealt with according to law after finding that the Local Court Magistrate made an error in excluding the exchange of Grindr messages. When remitted back to the Local Court, the defendant is not then prevented from running the same type of argument in a different way, and in accordance with the Supreme Court's rulings, in order to exclude the Grindr messages.

The reasoning of the Supreme Court's decision on the appeal is important to understand, namely:

1. Section 80G(5) of the Crimes Act 1900 (NSW) states that it is not an offence to incite the commission of a limited number of offences, including the section 66EB offence, which works to displace the application of the offence of inciting a crime under section 2 of the Crimes Prevention Act 1916 (NSW). This meant that the Local Court Magistrate made an error in excluding the Grindr messages under section 138 of the Evidence Act because section 138 cannot be engaged unless there is an illegality or impropriety by "Jeremy".
2. Section 11.4 of the Commonwealth Criminal Code has no relevant application to the NSW offence of section 66EB that the defendant is charged with. Section 11.4 of the Commonwealth Criminal Code is limited to incitement to commit commonwealth law offences (such as sections 474.26 or 474.27), not the NSW offence of section 66EB that the defendant is charged with. The Local Court Magistrate conducted the balancing exercise of considering the exclusion of the Grindr messages under section 138 Evidence Act (NSW) on the basis limited to an offence to incite a person to commit an NSW offence under section 66EB Crimes act 1900 (NSW). This was an error. The Magistrate did not conduct the balancing exercise by relying upon the commonwealth offence of section 11.4 in context of the commonwealth offences of section 474.26 and/or 474.27 of the Commonwealth Criminal Code. The Defendant may now run this argument in the local court when seeking the exclusion of the evidence again. The Magistrate will then have to conduct the correct balancing exercise based on this.

Is Vigilante Paedophile Hunting Legal in Australia?

It is not a crime under New South Wales Law to incite the commission of a limited number of offences, including some child sexual offences such as section 66EB of procuring or grooming a child by reason of section 80G(5) of the Crimes Act 1900 (NSW). In contrast, it is illegal to procure or groom a child under Australia's federal laws by reason of section 11.4 of the Commonwealth Criminal Code in context of the Commonwealth offences of sections 474.26 and 474.27 of the Commonwealth Criminal Code.

Section 474.26 of the Commonwealth Criminal Code is the offence of using a carriage service such as a text messaging or Chat applications such as Grindr and social media platforms to procure the recipient to engage in sexual activity where the sender is at least 18 years of age and the recipient is someone who is or who the sender believes to be, under 16 years of age. This offence carries a penalty of up to 15 years imprisonment.

Section 474.27 of the Commonwealth Criminal Code creates a similar offence in relation to grooming by making it easier to procure the recipient to engage in sexual activity with the sender. This offence carries a penalty of up to 15 years imprisonment.

For more on this topic, contact our sexual assault lawyers Sydney team for a confidential consultation.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.