Sex with teen but teacher not guilty
A TEACHER has been found not guilty of procuring a teenage student into having an affair with her despite admitting to having sex with the boy.
A lack of sex from the North Queensland woman’s husband was suggested in court as a factor prompting the woman to start a sexual relationship with the 16year-old student.
Townsville District Court heard there was no doubt the boy was a “willing and able participant” in having sex with the teacher on at least four occasions in 2016.
Defence barrister Stephen Zillman said when the student was asked by police if he thought the teacher took advantage of him he replied: “Not at all.”
The 33-year-old female teacher was on trial in Townsville District Court after pleading not guilty to three counts of procuring a young person for carnal knowledge.
A jury took just 15 minutes to find her not guilty yesterday afternoon.
Crown prosecutor Dominque Orr said consent was not an issue in the case but the jury had to decide whether or not the defendant “enticed or recruited” the teenager for her own, selfish, sexual gratification.
Ms Orr said the defendant was not a direct supervisor of the boy at the school but was nevertheless an authority figure who enticed the complainant during a bomb threat by asking him if he “would ever sleep with a teacher”.
The court heard the pair chatted on social media before the woman drove the boy to Crystal Creek and supplied him with beer.
“Two things that (the student) doesn’t have … wheels and beers … she makes them happen,” Ms Orr said.
“She told (the student) her husband hadn’t slept with her in a while … (the student told police) ‘ he wasn’t giving it to her’.
“On that occasion (the student) may have made the first move but that’s because the defendant had done everything to get them to that point.”
The pair had sex on that occasion and another two times.
Defence barrister Stephen Zillman said whether or not the sex occurred was not being contested but said his client did not procure the student for sexual exploitation.
“You probably have little doubt that it was sordid … that it was morally wrong, but do not translate that into a finding of criminality,” Mr Zillman said.
He argued the boy was already sexually experienced, having told police he used an “alphabet” technique during oral sex with the teacher.
Mr Zillman labelled the teenager as “experienced in love making” and said if anything the student used the teacher for his own sexual gratification, drawing attention to their last sexual encounter.
“He was so caring of her that he discussed with his mates, should there be farewell intercourse,” Mr Zillman said.
“The sexual utilisation was one way here.
“It borders on ridiculous, laughable… to suggest that she was utilising him for sexual purposes, that she was taking advantage of him.”
Following the verdict, Judge Greg Lynham discharged the teacher, who cried and embraced her supporters in the gallery.