LAW1042 Law and Technology Assessment 2 Case Study 4 Brief | RMIT

Case Study 4: Online Domestic Violence (week 9) 

The Case: R v. Jack Tykon 

Emma, a 32-year-old woman from Melbourne, had been in a relationship with her partner, Jack, for five years. Over time, Jack's controlling behaviour escalated. Initially, it started with small things— questioning who she was texting or asking for her social media passwords under the guise of trust. However, as the relationship continued, Jack's control intensified, incorporating elements of technological stalking and coercive control. 

After Emma tried to set boundaries by changing her passwords, Jack secretly installed spyware on her phone, allowing him to read her messages, track her location, and monitor her internet activity. He also hacked into her social media accounts, impersonating her to isolate her from friends and family by sending rude or dismissive messages to them. 

Whenever Emma went out, Jack would use a hidden AirTag in her car to track her movements. He also installed remote-access software on their shared computer, enabling him to watch her online activities in real time. If she turned off her phone or disabled location services, he would bombard her with aggressive texts, accusing her of being unfaithful. 

Jack used technology to manipulate Emma emotionally and financially. He restricted her online banking access, forcing her to justify every transaction. He installed security cameras in their home and insisted it was for safety, but in reality, he used them to surveil her, even while he was at work. 

Through a fake social media account, he spread false rumours about Emma, damaging her reputation at work and with mutual friends. When Emma confronted him, he gaslit her, claiming she was overreacting and imagining things. 

Whenever she attempted to leave, he threatened to release intimate images of her online that left her feeling trapped. She sought help online, but Jack had already set up alerts to notify him if she searched for domestic violence resources. 

The Resources: 

In developing their arguments, the parties used the following resources as evidence: 

• Office of the eSafety Commissioner webpage: Domestic violence | eSafety Commissioner.
• Conversation Articles: New laws to tackle technology-based abuse in NSW are welcome. But police and courts also need to step up, and Australia has promised to end domestic violence within a generation. Jess Hill asks: Are our strategies working?
• Academic Article: Safeguarding the "Internet of Things" for Victim-Survivors of Domestic and Family Violence: Anticipating Exploitative Use and Encouraging Safety-by-Design
• Podcast: Uncovering the Dark Side of Ve - Podcast on Crimes Against Women - Apple Podcasts 

The Judgment: 

Justice Hamsa was having difficulty drafting their judgment in this matter; their associates were on leave, and Justice Hamsa was very busy with other matters. They decided to use ChatGPT to draft the judgment in this matter and did not double-check the result.

Judgment: R v Jack Tykon 

In The Country Court of Victoria

Between: 

R (Prosecution) 

And

JACK TYKON (Defendant) 

Judgment

Delivered by Justice Hamsa 

The Applicant, Emma R, seeks legal redress under the Family Violence Protection Act 2008 (Vic) and the Online Safety Act 2021(Cth) for coercive control, technological stalking, and image-based abuse perpetrated by the Respondent, Jack T. 

The Applicant asserts that the Respondent engaged in a sustained campaign of coercive control, including:

• Technological Stalking - Installing spyware on her mobile device, tracking her vehicle without consent, and accessing her accounts. 
• Financial and Emotional Control - Restricting access to financial resources and using smart home technology to monitor and intimidate her.
• Threats of Image-Based Abuse - Using threats to release intimate images to exert control over her actions. 

The Respondent denies that his actions constitute coercive control or unlawful surveillance and argues that any tracking or monitoring was consensual. He further contends that existing laws on stalking and domestic violence are sufficient, and no further penalties should be applied. 

Evidence Considered 

The Applicant relied on multiple expert sources to substantiate her claims:

• The Respondent used smart home technology, including security cameras and remote access applications, to monitor the Applicant without her full knowledge or consent.
• The Court accepts expert evidence from the eSafety Commissioner that coercive control through digital means is a recognised and escalating form of domestic abuse.
• The Respondent's repeated digital harassment and intimidation tactics satisfy the threshold for coercive control under the Family Violence Protection Act 2008 (Vic). 

Threats of Image-Based Abuse and Online Harassment: 

• The Respondent's threats to share intimate images constitute a criminal offense under the Online Safety Act 2021 (Cth) and Crimes Act 1958 (Vic), s.41DA (Distribution of intimate images without consent).
• The Applicant provided copies of messages where the Respondent explicitly stated he would release images unless she complied with his demands, confirming intent to cause harm.
• Additionally, the Court finds that the Respondent's online conduct, including persistent and harassing electronic communications directed at the Applicant, falls under the provisions of s 474.17 of the Crimes Act 1990 (Cth), which criminalises the use of a carriage service to menace, harass, or offend.
• The Court acknowledges that the repeated digital harassment through text messages, emails, and social media constitutes a misuse of a carriage service for harassment, warranting federal-level legal intervention. 

Psychological and Emotional Impact on the Applicant: 

• The Court finds that the Respondent's actions have caused significant emotional distress, fear for personal safety, and reputational harm to the Applicant.
• Testimony from mental health professionals confirms that the Applicant has suffered anxiety, depression, and trauma-related symptoms, directly linked to the Respondent's conduct. 

Conclusion and Orders 

Family Violence Intervention Order (FVIO): The Respondent is prohibited from: 

• Contacting the Applicant via any means, including digital platforms.
• Tracking, surveilling, or accessing any of the Applicant's digital or physical property.
• Approaching within 500 meters of the Applicant's residence, workplace, or other designated locations. 

Criminal Penalties: 

• The Respondent is sentenced to two years' imprisonment, suspended upon compliance with all intervention orders and participation in a behavioural change program for perpetrators of domestic violence.
• The Respondent is convicted under s 474.17 of the Crimes Act 1990 (Cth) for misuse of a carriage service for harassment.
• The Respondent is fined $25,000 for violations of the Surveillance Devices Act 1999 (Vic). 1

Compensation to the Applicant: 

• The Respondent must pay $60,000 in damages for emotional distress, reputational harm, and economic loss.
• The Respondent must cover all legal costs incurred by the Applicant. 

Digital Safety Measures: 

• The eSafety Commissioner is directed to issue a takedown notice for any false or defamatory content posted by the Respondent.
• The Respondent is permanently prohibited from using tracking devices, spyware, or home surveillance systems without explicit legal authorisation. 

Your instructions 

You are one of Justice Hamsa's Associates. You return from leave to discover the judgment in the case of R v. Tykonwas written with ChatGPT. You discover that there are many legal and factual errors in the judgment, and it also incorrectly combines civil and criminal matters. 

Knowing that Justice Hamsa will get in trouble if it is discovered that they used AI to draft the judgment, you take it upon yourself to write a new judgment. 

What you need to do: 

In 1,600 words (+/- 10%), rewrite the judgment above, correctly applying the facts set out in the judgment to the Crimes Act 1958(Vic) and the Crimes Act 1990(th). 

• In your application, you are not required to discuss all of the legislation mentioned in the original judgment. Rather, you need to discuss the offences mentioned in the Crimes Act 1958(Vic) and the Crimes Act 1990(Cth)and apply these legal principles to the case.
• In particular, you need to research how online domestic violence may infringe current criminal laws and then apply this knowledge to the case study. Your discussion should include relevant legal precedent; however, you are also encouraged to include authoritative commentary around the issue, such as government reports and academic research.
• In your judgment, reflect on the evidence used by the parties, whether it is authoritative and reliable, and how it should be used in the judgment. 

In 200 words (+/- 10%), critically reflect on the use of AI to write the judgment by Justice Hamsa. How accurate was the judgment? How detailed was the application of the law to the facts? Would this serve as a useful precedent for future cases on similar facts?