//
[2025] ACTSC 180
General information, not legal advice.
Supreme Court of the ACT
2025-05-05
Christensen AJ
Original judgment source is linked above.
Zoe will write a short plain-English summary of this judgment and email it to you for free: what it was about, what the court decided and why. It can take up to a minute.
General information, not legal advice.
Or create a free account to save it and ask Zoe follow-up questions.
Source: the ACT Courts (www.courts.act.gov.au). Converted to plain text by ZoeLaw. Not the official version.
SUPREME COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY
Case Title: DPP v Meadow (a pseudonym) Citation: [2025] ACTSC 180 Hearing Date: 2 May 2025 Decision Date: 5 May 2025 Before: Christensen AJ Decision: See [78] Catchwords: CRIMINAL LAW – DRUG AND ALCOHOL SENTENCING LIST – Judgment and Punishment – Sentence – aggravated stalking – aggravated distribute intimate image without consent – aggravated threat to distribute intimate image – use carriage service to harass – family violence offending – ‘love bombing’ – level of sophistication – criminal history includes family violence offences – whether drug and alcohol treatment order appropriate and suitable – assessed as medium-high risk of general reoffending – offender likely had severe substance use disorder at time of offending – where offender has previously engaged in residential rehabilitation program – offender demonstrates insight and remorse for offending – offender would benefit from continued intensive oversight and supervision – period of imprisonment only appropriate sentence – treatment order imposed Legislation Cited: Bail Act 1992 (ACT) s 49 Crimes Act 1900 (ACT) ss 12A, 35, 72, 72E Crimes Act 1914 (Cth) ss 16A, 20AB Crimes (Sentencing) Act 2005 (ACT) ss 34B, 35, 80S, 80T Criminal Code Act 1995 (Cth) s 474.17 Family Violence Act 2016 (ACT) s 9 Cases Cited: DD v Illievski [2016] ACTSC 115 Jewell v DPP [2024] ACTCA 30 La v R [2021] NSWCCA 136 Roncevic v Boxx [2015] ACTSC 53 R v Black [2022] ACTSC 4 R v DD [2017] ACTSC 109 R v EN [2020] ACTSC 302 R v Kulczycki [2018] ACTSC 9 [Redacted] [Redacted] R v NO (No 2) [2018] ACTSC 37 Parties: Director of Public Prosecutions Zach Meadow (a pseudonym) (Offender) Representation: Counsel T Whybrow; G Meikle (DPP) C Duffy (Offender) Solicitors ACT Director of Public Prosecutions Legal Aid ACT (Offender) File Numbers: SCC 257, 258 of 2024 CHRISTENSEN AJ: Introduction
Zach Meadow (a pseudonym) is to be sentenced with respect to seven offences related to offending against his then intimate partner. The offences are as follows: (a) Three offences of aggravated stalking contrary to s 35 of the Crimes Act 1900 (ACT) (Crimes Act), carrying a maximum penalty of seven years imprisonment. (b) One offence of aggravated distribute intimate image without consent, contrary to s 72C of the Crimes Act, carrying a maximum penalty of four years imprisonment, 400 penalty units, or both. (c) One offence of aggravated threat to distribute intimate image contrary to s 72E of the Crimes Act, carrying a maximum penalty of four years imprisonment, 400 penalty units, or both. (d) One offence of use a carriage service to menace/harass/offend contrary to s 474.17 of the Criminal Code Act 1995 (Cth), carrying a maximum penalty of five years imprisonment.
There is additionally a summary charge of failing to appear after bail undertaking, contrary to s 49 of the Bail Act 1992 (ACT) which carries a maximum penalty of two years imprisonment, 200 penalty units, or both.
Mr Meadow seeks that a drug and alcohol treatment order (treatment order) be imposed: s 12A Crimes (Sentencing) Act 2005 (ACT) (Sentencing Act). He has been found suitable for such an order by both ACT Corrective Services and Canberra Health Services. The prosecution accepts that, if the Court finds that a term of imprisonment of four years or less is appropriate, a treatment order would be appropriate.
The sentencing exercise requires careful consideration as to Mr Meadow’s eligibility, appropriateness, and suitability for a treatment order.
The offending Background
Mr Meadow and the victim had been in a long term relationship, during which there were periods that they resided together. They are family members as defined in s 9 of the Family Violence Act 2016 (ACT) (Family Violence Act).
On 18 September 2023, following a separation, the victim was granted an interim family violence order. The order was served on Mr Meadow on 20 September 2023 and was in place until 1 November 2023. The order included that Mr Meadow was not to locate, or attempt to locate the victim, to contact the victim, or to engage in behaviour constituting family violence, ‘including but not limited to the dissemination of videos and photographs of a sexual nature’ of the victim to third parties.
Aggravated stalking with intent to harass: 26 September – 3 October 2023 (CAN 2024/7278)
The first message was sent at about 8:08pm on Wednesday 27 September 2023, being an emoji of a rose. At about 2:18pm the following day, police attended an address and spoke with the victim about the message.
On the afternoon of Saturday 30 September 2023, Mr Meadow called the victim four times, leaving voicemails, and that night sent 134 text messages. Some of the messages included [sic]: a. Don’t ignore me. Can you please drop all this and drop the avo. Please it’s all too much. I loose my jobs, car babe this is going to kill me. I hate jail. … d. Please Tuesday let’s just drop the order. e. And slowly take small steps don’t allow others to control what you want. We can save this. Live alone for a while. I will seek treatment. f. Delete these messages. Please stop this. Let’s meet and fuck. I’m dying for it bub.
Mr Meadow then went on to call the victim during that night and into the early hours of the following morning. At about 9:55am on Sunday 1 October 2023, the victim attended at the police station.
Mr Meadow continued to send the victim messages throughout that day and early into the following morning. These messages included threats by Mr Meadow of suicide. The messages included [sic]: I’m going to kill myself I’m done. See ya I want you to remember [victim’s name] that you took my life. I will haunt you forever in heaven.
The offending in this charge involved, in summary, that between 26 September and 3 October 2023, in contravention of the family violence offence, and with intent to harass the victim, Mr Meadow: (a) sent the victim 75 messages over Facebook messenger; (b) sent the victim five intimate images of other males over Facebook messenger; (c) attempted to audio call the victim three times on Facebook messenger; (d) attempted to video call the victim once on Facebook messenger; (e) sent the victim 159 text messages; (f) attempted to call the victim 11 times; and (g) left the victim three voicemails.
On 2 October 2023 at about 6:45pm, Mr Meadow was located at a family member’s residence in the ACT. He was arrested and charged.
Fail to appear after bail undertaking (CAN 2024/4615)
On 3 October 2023, Mr Meadow was granted bail, with conditions, by the Magistrates Court. On 9 October 2023, he failed to report to police as required.
On 23 October 2023, he breached an obligation of parole by failing to comply with supervision requirements (see below at [63]), and a warrant was issued for his arrest.
The following day, on 24 October 2023, he failed to appear at court and a warrant was issued for his arrest.
Mr Meadow was not arrested on these warrants until 12:12am on 21 April 2024 when he was located at [redacted].
Aggravated stalking with intent to harass: 8 October – 1 November 2023 (CAN 2024/7279)
On Monday 9 October 2023 at about 12:34am, the victim received a message from Mr Meadow via Facebook Messenger which was soon after ‘unsent’. A message that was not ‘unsent’ stated “this is beyond funny, this is shit”. The victim received approximately 36 further ‘unsent’ messages, which the victim still received as a notification. Mr Meadow also attempted to call the victim approximately four times.
At about 6:20am the same day, the victim received an email in his private email account from his own email address. Mr Meadow gained access to the victim’s account and wrote an email approximately 30 paragraphs long. It showed as an unread message. The email contained intimate details about the victim and Mr Meadow’s relationship and details about the family violence order that the victim had obtained.
At about 6:43am, the victim received 24 text messages from Mr Meadow, who was using a different mobile number than what he had used in the previous contact. Mr Meadow admitted to sending the email. He continued to message the victim throughout the day. He also sent another email, again using the victim’s email account. The victim then again spoke to police.
From the early hours of the following day, on Tuesday 10 October, Mr Meadow sent messages to the victim, with this continuing until the morning of Saturday 14 October 2023. These included multiple text messages, audio messages and explicit videos, one of these being a video of Mr Meadow showing him masturbating and ejaculating on himself. On the morning of 14 October at about 7:25am, Mr Meadow sent a message saying “this is my last and final message as I change my number”. He then sent 10 audio messages. Thereafter, he ceased using the different mobile number.
From 9:10pm on Monday 23 October until 4:12pm on 31 October 2023, Mr Meadow resumed contacting the victim, using multiple new and different mobile numbers. The contact was by text message, including images, video, and audio message, and occurred at all hours. The contact included explicit messages, being videos of Mr Meadow with other men. One of the messages involved sending the victim his own ‘Grindr’ account log in details.
On Wednesday 25 October 2023, at about 1:30pm, the victim attended at the police station and provided police with his mobile phone. The phone was kept at the police station whilst Mr Meadow continued to send the numerous harassing messages to the victim.
The offending in this charge involved, in summary, that between 8 October 2023 and 2 November 2023, with intent to harass and in contravention of a family violence order, Mr Meadow: (a) sent the victim 836 text messages; (b) sent the victim 52 audio messages; (c) attempted to call the victim 83 times; (d) attempted to Facetime audio call the victim twice; (e) attempted to Facetime video call the victim eight times; (f) sent the victim 38 messages on Facebook messenger and later ‘unsent’ 37 of them; (g) attempted to audio call the victim six times on Facebook messenger; (h) sent the victim 10 intimate images of other males; (i) sent the victim five explicit images of the offender; (j) sent the victim six explicit videos of the offender; (k) sent the victim two explicit videos of the offender and other men; and (l) sent the victim two emails.
Aggravated distributing intimate image: 8 October – 27 October 2023 (CAN 2024/5780)
Between 8 October and 27 October 2023, the offender distributed 11 intimate images of the victim to the victim without the victim’s consent.
On Monday 9 October at 12:34am, among other messages which are the subject of charge CAN 2024/7279, Mr Meadow sent the victim an intimate image via Facebook messenger. The image depicted the victim’s genitals while the victim was in an intimate and exposed position. The image does not depict the face or any defining features of the victim. It appears that the victim was posing and was aware of the photograph being taken.
This same image was sent again at around 5:25pm on Thursday 12 October 2023.
On Thursday 12 October 2023 at about 11:27pm, among other messages which are the subject of charge CAN 2024/7279, Mr Meadow sent three intimate images of the victim and Mr Meadow together and four intimate images of the victim. The images of Mr Meadow and the victim together depicted the same occasion of sexual intercourse, with each of these images depicting closer zooming in on the image. The intimate images sent at this time involved a close-up image of the victim’s genitals, and the same image as sent on 9 October and earlier on this day. The images do not depict the face or any defining feature of the victim. It appears that the photographs may have been posed, and that the victim was aware the photograph was being taken.
On Friday 13 October 2023 at 6:21pm, among other messages which are the subject of charge CAN 2024/7279, Mr Meadow sent a text message containing an intimate image of the victim. This was the same image as that sent on 9 October and four times on 12 October 2023.
On Friday 13 October 2023 at 9:48pm, among other messages which are the subject of charge CAN 2024/7279, Mr Meadow sent a text message to the victim containing an intimate image of the victim and one containing an intimate image of Mr Meadow and the victim. These were the same images that had been previously sent, on 9 and 12 October.
On Thursday 26 October 2023 between 4:18pm and 8:11pm, among other messages which are the subject of charge CAN 2024/7279, Mr Meadow sent a text message to the victim containing an intimate image of the victim. This was the same image of the victim as previously sent.
Aggravated threat to distribute intimate image: 10 October 2023 (CAN 2024/4792)
On 10 October 2023 at about 8:53pm, the victim received 27 text messages. In some of these messages, Mr Meadow threatened to distribute intimate photographs and videos of the victim to his friends, family and workplace. These messages included: And you getting fucked by the two gay guys may end up on people’s computer at work over the next few days.
Mr Meadow went on to threaten that if the victim did not pay him money and comply with his directions, he would send out intimate images and videos of the victim to his work, family, and friends. This included the following [sic]: I’m excited. I will be far away by the time it happens. Pay me back from keeping my shit form me and keeping my bond money, ring and vacuum. Think I’m joking I’m not. If my bond money is not in my bank in the next few hours they are getting sent out. First video goes out at 11pm, then more every hour after that. Vacumm goes to [name redacted] you have 2 days to return vacuum and ring. If not more go out. Thanks for being a cunt to me and doing all the horrible things you did to me. This is what happens when people steal and lie. And [name redacted] gave me a few of your old gross vides of you fucking [redacted due to offensiveness]. [Name redacted] and [Name redacted] will receive the first ones. 2 hours you have bond in bank, no videos go out not theres it’s getting done. Now it’s my time for p PAY BACK
The other threatening and menacing messages sent by Mr Meadow at around 8:53pm on 10 October 2023 that did not threaten the distribution of intimate images or videos, form part of charge CAN 2024/7281.
Aggravated stalking with intent to cause an apprehension, or fear of harm: 9 – 27 October 2023 (CAN 2024/7281)
The remainder of the 27 text messages sent at about 8:53pm on 10 October 2023 were sent with the intention of causing an apprehension or fear of harm to the victim. These included the following [sic]: a. I know where you live. Some advice there are two ex-partners of yours that are very angry with you still. I gave [name redacted] your work details, number, mum’s address as that’s what he asked for. So be careful. See Ya. b. Breach me on this mother fucker. Good luck c. Just watch yourself coming and going someone may be just around the corner d. That’s a far shoot. But know the apartment building. Gay marfia are watching. See what happens when you are a cunt to people, it comes back to get ya any day.
Mr Meadow also told the victim that he had a video of the victim “smoking a crack pipe” and threatened to disseminate this to his work colleagues.
On 26 October 2023 at about 11pm, the victim received 83 text messages from Mr Meadow, which were sent with the intention of causing an apprehension or fear of harm to the victim. The contents of these messages included [sic]: … c. I’m done with you. Time to get hurt d. You have 24 hours cunt to return my things vacuum, my bond or sending a very hard guy around to your mum’s to watch your movements and let’s see who gets hurt e. you are a fuck witand you have really pissed me off with your shit. You little cunt. I would move I was you time is tovking f. Actually you an hour to put that cash in my bank Or shit is going to start you are a cunt hate you now … j. And [Name redacted: ‘JC’] wants your address and work and phone details and he will get them too … l. Dirty dogs pay my friend. People that go to police are dogs. And jail birds don’t like them. Yourmum needs to move.
The victim did not know who ‘JC’ was. Mr Meadow continued to send numerous abusive and threatening messages to the victim.
Use a carriage service to harass: 4 November 2023 (CAN 2024/5786)
On Wednesday 1 November 2023, the family violence order was dismissed due to neither Mr Meadow nor the victim appearing at a scheduled court listing.
On Saturday 4 November 2023, Mr Meadow continued to send text messages and audio messages to the victim. These were in all the circumstances harassing. Three of these audio messages included the offender saying: Babe do you want sex tonight or what [Victim’s name] I want you to fuck me Do you want me to come to Canberra.
Mr Meadow sent 10 text messages including nine links for the victim to join his ‘iFinder circle’, along with an invitation code. If the victim joined the ‘iFinder circle’ it would have allowed Mr Meadow to track the victim’s location.
Nature and circumstances of offending
The offending was, overall, a serious example of communicating with a former partner in an unrelenting, highly harassing, and offensive manner. The prosecution submitted that the offending had a characteristic of ‘love bombing’, but this does not mean what occurred was in any way a reflection of loving behaviour. It was appalling conduct that will have caused significant alarm and distress to the victim, evident by his having involved police to the extent that he provided police with his phone. There was extensive communication in terms of both volume and frequency, utilising numerous platforms.
A level of sophistication was involved having regard to the measures taken to make contact with the victim, including using the victim’s own email account. This was a particular violation that will have likely made the victim feel that there was nowhere he could be safe from the offender’s harassment. The various mechanisms of contact the offender used show his determination and persistence in attempting to make contact with the victim, and attempting to get the victim to meet with him in person. The communications included sexually explicit content, as well as threatening content, threats of self harm, and attempts to have the contravention order removed. The communications escalated in their seriousness, reflective of increasing obsessive desperation and harassment by Mr Meadow. The communications reflect that he was well aware as to the unlawfulness of his conduct, but he continued to engage in it. It was a form of coercive control, involving significant emotional abuse and manipulation of the victim.
The image related offending involved images in which the victim was not identifiable, but was content of the highest level of intimacy. The distribution was limited to the victim only, although the threat to distribute was made with reference to multiple potential recipients. The threat to distribute was particularly serious, involving as it did elements of retribution attached to the threats.
The stalking offences are statutorily aggravated by the involvement of family violence and the contravention of a court order, and the image offending is also aggravated by family violence. This accounts for the applicable maximum penalty. Being family violence offending, s 34B of the Sentencing Act is also of application. The victim was undoubtedly made to feel unsafe in his own home, and the offender has one or more other convictions for serious family violence offences.
Stern sentences are warranted, with imprisonment being the only appropriate outcome, to reflect denunciation of such family violence offending, as well as specific and general deterrence. However, the sentences to be imposed must reflect that the duration of each of the offences of stalking were relatively short, occurring throughout a period from 26 September to 4 November 2023. Within that period though, a number of the offences involved ‘rolled up’ charges, increasing the criminality involved. Nonetheless, the stalking did not escalate to measures beyond the communications made. In DD v Illievski [2016] ACTSC 115 Murrell CJ observed (at [28]): The objective seriousness of stalking conduct should be assessed by reference to the range of conduct that is captured by the concept of stalking as defined in s 35(2) of the Crimes Act 1900 (ACT). Stalking conduct includes loitering near the stalked person, keeping them under surveillance, interfering with their property and other conduct 6 which has more immediacy in terms of capacity to cause fear of harm than does, generally speaking, communication by telephone or electronic messaging.
Pleas of guilty
The pleas of guilty to the charges the subject of sentence were entered early, before any plea of not guilty, and at the mention stage in the Magistrates Court. The matters were committed for sentence to the Supreme Court. This would typically warrant a reduction in the sentences in the order of 25 per cent.
However, the prosecution submitted that, with respect to the ACT offences, the court would consider the case was one that was overwhelmingly strong. There was no submission on behalf of Mr Meadow that the case could not be characterised in this way. I accept the prosecution’s submission. The offending was captured electronically, and the contents of the communications are such that there was no available inference other than that contended in the fault elements of the offending. The prosecution did accept that such a finding does not preclude a reduction, only that it could not be a “significant reduction”: s 35(4) Sentencing Act. I consider a reduction in the order of 10 per cent to be appropriate.
As to the Commonwealth charge, the prosecution submitted that only s 16A(2)(g)(iii) of the Crimes Act 1914 (Cth) is of application. The Court is to have regard to the degree to which the pleas of guilty and the timing of the pleas resulted in any benefit to the community, or any victim of, or witness to, the offence. This was an early plea of guilty with significant utilitarian value. I will have regard to this in reducing the sentence that I would have otherwise imposed in the order of 25 per cent.
Subjective circumstances
The offender is now 47 years of age. His subjective circumstances are set out in detail in the ACT Corrective Services treatment order assessment report and in the Canberra Health Services assessment report. Mr Meadow’s subjective circumstances are also set out in detail in [redacted].
It is unnecessary to repeat in detail the subjective circumstances as set out in [redacted]. Mr Meadow experienced an upbringing that was safe and comfortable, although from 10 years of age he was impacted by his father’s alcohol abuse and was exposed to violence in the context of his parents’ separation.
It is relevant to note that in addition to this, Mr Meadow experienced a significant traumatic incident in 2004, and it was after this that Mr Meadow engaged in substance misuse and his offending behaviour commenced soon after. He has used cannabis and alcohol from 16 years of age. He first used methamphetamine at age 24 years, progressing to daily use between 2005 and 2007. He had periods of abstinence thereafter, but also a cycle of relapse. He experienced a significant relapse with methamphetamine in 2017 following the death of his father. He also experienced a serious relapse with alcohol in 2022 after his release from custody. Mr Meadow has also engaged in GHB use in the past, and I note that this is a substance that is now capable of being the subject of testing under a treatment order.
Health Services find that Mr Meadow presented with a likelihood of severe substance use disorder at the time of his offending. His methamphetamine use equally precipitated and perpetuated his engagement in offending behaviour. Mr Meadow reports that he has only ever offended while under the influence of illicit substances. He “felt lost”.
Mr Meadow has previously engaged in rehabilitation programs, described by Health Services in summary as involving “attend[ing] multiple treatment programs since 2018”. Most recently, this has involved successful completion of the [redacted] six month residential rehabilitation program. Mr Meadow is described as having “exemplified a lot of initiative and drive” and is someone who has “learnt a great deal in terms of owning his responsibilities of the past”. He “seems to have adopted a new perspective in which he wants to live his life”. This program, which includes urine drug screen testing, is described as incorporating: one-on-one counselling, group work and classroom based activities around topics including: life management skills, self-image, relationships, communication, emotional regulation and spiritual growth.
In addition, Mr Meadow has had the opportunity while with this program to participate in courses operated by [redacted]. He has embraced this opportunity and obtained a number of training qualifications. He intends to continue, as an online student, a [redacted]. He also intends to engage with his church, and to spend time looking after his home, walking his dog, and spending time with his partner and family. He has a group of prosocial friends in Canberra, interstate and overseas.
Criminal history and conditional liberty
Mr Meadow has a relevant criminal history, particularly for offences involving domestic violence and the breaching of protection orders. This includes twenty previous convictions for contravention of family violence or apprehended domestic violence orders, and one previous offence of stalk/intimidate with intent to cause physical or mental harm.
The previous convictions for contravention of a family violence order relate to the same victim that is the subject of the current offences. This is of significant concern. Previous sentences and court orders, including an intensive correction order, have not deterred Mr Meadow from further family violence offending.
Nor did a parole order that Mr Meadow was subject to [redacted]. [Redacted]. He had been released on parole on 23 December 2021, with the period of parole to conclude on 23 December 2023. The parole was cancelled on 23 April 2024 as a result of his non-compliance towards the end of the order. He was required to serve the balance of the period of imprisonment, until 23 June 2024.
It is an aggravating factor on sentence that Mr Meadow was on parole at the time of the offending and raises concern for his capability to comply with a community based order. This though must be considered in the context of Mr Meadow’s history of substance dependency. With reference to this, he is assessed by Corrective Services as having a medium-high risk of general reoffending. I also note that Corrective Services find Mr Meadow’s history of compliance with community based orders as being mixed, but describe Mr Meadow as having complied satisfactorily with aspects of his previous community based orders. He is described as having the capacity to comply with community based orders. He has complied with his most recent grant of bail while he was in a residential rehabilitation program.
Time in custody
Mr Meadow was initially remanded in custody on 2 October 2023, until the following day. He was then again remanded in custody from 24 June 2024 until 4 November 2024. A total of 136 days in pre-sentence custody applies. While in custody, Mr Meadow was subject to drug testing on two occasions, 22 April 2024 and 24 June 2024, and he returned negative results on both occasions.
The release from custody on 4 November 2024 was in accordance with a grant of bail by the Supreme Court. Bail was granted for the purposes of engagement in the residential rehabilitation program. In a letter to the Court, Mr Meadow referenced the decision of Loukas-Karlsson J in granting him bail, describing it as an opportunity that he recognised as his last chance. Mr Meadow expressed that he was determined not to let her Honour down and that “what [her Honour] gave me was a gift”.
The period in residential rehabilitation is capable of being considered as a form of ‘quasi-custody’: see, e.g. La v R [2021] NSWCCA 136. Here, where the information before the Court satisfies me that onerous restrictions were placed on the offender while in residential rehabilitation, I am satisfied that it is appropriate to take this period into account in a ‘quasi-custody’ manner. In this matter, this will be taken into account by reducing the period of imprisonment for the fail to appear charge so that it is only a nominal term of imprisonment.
Current sentencing practice
The prosecution assisted with a number of authorities, while noting the limitations that authorities said to be comparative can provide. The primary authority of assistance, Jewell v DPP [2024] ACTCA 30, is comparative in terms of some of the communications involved, but is a more serious example for the offence involving almost the “full range of conduct” of stalking. With respect to the aggravated stalking offence, a starting point of three years imprisonment was imposed.
I have otherwise had regard to the authorities provided by the prosecution, being R v Black [2022] ACTSC 4, R v EN [2020] ACTSC 302, R v NO (No 2) [2018] ACTSC 37, R v Kulczycki [2018] ACTSC 9, R v DD [2017] ACTSC 109 and Roncevic v Boxx [2015] ACTSC 53. The limitations of these authorities include that lesser maximum penalties applied in those matters.
Eligibility for a treatment order
I conclude that the sentences to be imposed, particularly given the degree of concurrency that is appropriate, are such that the offender is eligible for a treatment order. It warrants noting two matters in this regard.
Firstly, while the offending involves aspects of sexually explicit content, the offences are not “sexual offences” as defined in s 12A(9) of the Sentencing Act (“an offence against the Crimes Act 1900, Pt 3”) such that they are ineligible for a treatment order.
Secondly, s 20AB of the Crimes Act 1914 (Cth) permits the ACT Supreme Court to impose a treatment order in respect of a federal offence. However, as the prosecution sensibly submitted, the time spent in custody already includes a period that is available to regard this sentence as already served.
Appropriateness and suitability of a treatment order
The offender has previously engaged in numerous rehabilitation programs, including the most recent completion of a six month residential rehabilitation program. This might suggest that there can be little optimism for long term sustained abstinence from substance misuse and desistence from offending.
However, it also suggests that Mr Meadow would benefit from continued intensive oversight and supervision following completion of his most recent rehabilitation effort. A treatment order would provide this. It has the prospect of providing the difference in his rehabilitation journey, and court ordered supervision, in contrast to what has been available previously. Corrective Services described that “the ongoing contact and supervision associated with a [treatment order] may provide the structure Mr Meadow requires to address his illicit substance use and live a prosocial life”. Health Services have identified an available therapeutically recommended day program for Mr Meadow to continue his engagement in rehabilitation.
In addition, under a treatment order, he will continue to be required to engage in a strict regime of urinalysis testing, with immediate consequences, including the prospect of imprisonment, if there is noncompliance. His rehabilitation efforts with respect to substance use and family violence offending will also be able to be closely monitored, enabling greater community protection, particularly for the victim of his offending, than would otherwise be available.
Mr Meadow presents as having insight into the impacts of his substance use and its role in his offending behaviour. He is reported by Corrective Services as acknowledging the severity of his offending behaviour, and the impact of his offending behaviour on the victim and both of their families. He is reported to have displayed awareness of the impact that his cycle of substance use has had on his relationships. In his letter to the Court he expresses his “deepest remorse for [his] actions” and that a treatment order will keep him accountable. This remorse and insight provides a solid motivating foundation for Mr Meadow to finally achieve sustained rehabilitation.
I am satisfied that a treatment order is an appropriate and suitable one: ss 12A, 80S, 80T Sentencing Act.
Orders
Sentenced to: (3) On the charge of aggravated stalking (CAN 2024/7278) the offender is convicted and sentenced to 1 year, 4 months, and 6 days imprisonment, reduced from 18 months imprisonment on account of the plea of guilty, to commence on 20 March 2025 and end on 25 July 2026. (4) On the charge of aggravated stalking (CAN 2024/7279) the offender is convicted and sentenced to 1 year, 9 months, and 18 days, imprisonment, reduced from 2 years imprisonment on account of the plea of guilty, to commence on 20 June 2025 and end on 6 April 2027. (5) On the charge of aggravated distribute intimate image without consent (CAN 2024/5780) the offender is convicted and sentenced to 10 months and 24 days imprisonment, reduced from 12 months imprisonment on account of the plea of guilty, to commence on 20 September 2026 and end on 12 August 2027. (6) On the charge of aggravated threaten to distribute intimate image without consent (CAN 2024/4792) the offender is convicted and sentenced to 1 year, 4 months, and 6 days imprisonment, reduced from 18 months imprisonment on account of the plea of guilty, to commence on 20 October 2026 and end on 25 February 2028. (7) On the charge of aggravated stalking (CAN 2024/7281) the offender is convicted and sentenced to 1 year, 4 months, and 6 days imprisonment, reduced from 18 months imprisonment on account of the plea of guilty, to commence on 20 April 2027 and end on 25 August 2028.
Drug and alcohol treatment order: (8) A Drug and Alcohol Treatment Order pursuant to s 12A of the Crimes (Sentencing) Act 2005 (ACT) is made for Zach Meadow, in respect of the eligible offences set out in Orders 3 to 7, of which Zach Meadow has been convicted, and for which he has been sentenced to a total term of 3 years, 5 months, and 6 days imprisonment. (9) The drug and alcohol treatment order be for 3 years, 3 months, and 21 days, to commence on 5 May 2025 and end on 25 August 2028. (10) The Custodial Part of the drug and alcohol treatment order for the eligible offences be suspended under s 80W of the Crimes (Sentencing) Act 2005 (ACT) from 5 May 2025 to 25 August 2028. (11) The Treatment and Supervision Part of the drug and alcohol treatment order be for 12 months, to commence on 5 May 2025 and end on 4 May 2026. (12) Under s 80ZA of the Crimes (Sentencing) Act 2005 (ACT), Zach Meadow be required to sign an undertaking to comply with the offender’s Good Behaviour obligations under s 85 of the Crimes (Sentence Administration) Act 2005 (ACT) from the day after the end of the Treatment and Supervision Part of the Drug and Alcohol Treatment Order, 5 May 2026, until the end of the total sentence, 25 August 2028, with a probation condition that he accept supervision by the Commissioner of ACT Corrective Services or his delegate for the period of the undertaking or such lesser period as the person supervising him considers appropriate and obey all reasonable directions of the person supervising him. (13) For the Treatment and Supervision Part of the drug and alcohol treatment order: (a) The core conditions of the order set out in s 80Y of the Crimes (Sentencing) Act 2005 (ACT) be hereby imposed. (b) Zach Meadow undertake any program, treatment or counselling, alcohol and drug testing or case management, and comply with any direction as to where he resides, or any curfew that may be required, by any member of the Treatment and Supervision Team and obey all reasonable directions of any member of that Team. (c) If Zach Meadow is discharged from or leaves any treatment program, he is to report to ACT Corrective Services by 4:00pm on the next business day. (d) Zach Meadow not return a positive test sample under alcohol and drug testing. (e) Zach Meadow not consume or use alcohol, cannabis, illicit drugs and prescription drugs not prescribed to him. (f) Zach Meadow comply with any directions of the Court from time to time about attendance at Court in person or by electronic means. (14) Zach Meadow be directed to sign a sealed copy of this Order and an undertaking to comply with the Order and any obligations under the Crimes (Sentence Administration) Act 2005 (ACT) for the period that this Order is in force before he leaves the Court precinct on 5 May 2025. (15) Zach Meadow be directed to appear in Court for DASL Review in person on Friday, 9 May 2025 at 12:30pm.
I certify that the preceding seventy-eight [78] numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Sentence of her Honour Acting Justice Christensen. Associate: Date: 25 July 2025
DPP
Meadow
In this matter, there is a distinction in each of the offences in terms of the number of communications and images involved. For the use carriage service offence, this was offending that occurred on only one day.
The sentences to be imposed are to involve an application of the totality principle that reflects that there is a significant degree of overlap in each of the charges. It was a continuing course of conduct. The sentencing exercise involves sentencing for both ACT offences and a Commonwealth offence, and a sentence structure that provides for the distinct sentencing exercises is appropriate: Morrison v Maher (No 2) [2021] ACTSC 312 at [180], DPP v Matas [2024] ACTSC 234 at [308]-[311].
As to the fail to appear offence, this was at a mention which is a less serious example of this offence. However, the consequence of the failure to appear delayed the proceeding for almost six months, leaving the victim of family violence offending in a state of uncertainty. The offender was also on conditional liberty at the time of this offending. The only appropriate penalty involves one of imprisonment.
Mr Meadow reports that the use of substances had detrimentally affected his quality of life, his career, and his relationships. He has abstained from methamphetamine since April 2024, and from cannabis and alcohol in May 2024. Mr Meadow is motivated to maintain abstinence from substances in order to maintain his current intimate partner relationship and his relationship with family members. He has goals to: • Remain abstinent from all drug and alcohol use • Maintain a better quality of life • To become a successful and “good member” of society • Enjoy the last part of his mother’s life, free from stress • Be a better brother and uncle
Mr Meadow would typically reside with his partner, who continues to be supportive of him. However, at this stage of his recovery, he has available to him suitable housing with his mother and step father who are supportive of him. He describes his mother as being his “rock” and as someone who has “never given up” on him.
Mr Meadow is currently in receipt of the disability support pension, but has a prospect of engaging in casual work. His physical health is not an impediment to employment, but his mental health presents challenges for him. He reports a history of depression, anxiety, post-traumatic stress disorder and attention deficit hyperactivity disorder. He has not had good responses to medications for treatment in this regard, but would appear to require ongoing mental health support in the form of counselling. He does not present with symptoms indicative of any major mental illness.