'Does not matter' what victim did during abuse by former trainee teacher, court hears

CONTENT WARNING: This story refers to child sex abuse.

A court should not put weight on the behaviour of a victim abused by a trainee teacher “because he was a child”, a court has heard during sentencing.

Petra Shasha met the 15-year-old boy when she was 24 years old and working as a short-term prac teacher at his school, St Edmund’s College in Canberra, as part of her university studies in late 2020.

She left the school and started work at another, but the pair started talking on social media, and she went on to send him explicit photos and money and gave him lifts in her car.

Shasha pleaded not guilty when her ACT Supreme Court trial started last September, but it ended with jurors finding her guilty of four charges. These were the persistent sexual abuse of a child, grooming, committing an act of indecency and supplying pornographic material to a young person.

She was found not guilty of two other charges.

Sasha returned to the Supreme Court on Tuesday (4 February) for a sentencing hearing, where prosecutor Emilija Beljic said the prosecution rejected that it was irrelevant if he was an “active participant or a passive participant” in the ‘relationship’ between himself and Shasha.

“It does not matter what this child did because he was a child,” she said.

While she was at his school, Shasha did not teach the boy but Ms Beljic said she would “have been very attuned to” what year kids were in as a trainee teacher.

During the hearing, the court also heard details of reports prepared by forensic psychiatrist Dr Richard Furst for the court.

While being cross-examined by Ms Beljic on his findings, he said she had shown a tendency towards “giving in” when asked to do sexual things.

Dr Furst said Shasha’s decision to send explicit photos and videos to the victim when he requested the material was a response to factors such as low self-esteem.

“[Her decision to offend was] less likely to be [about] sexual gratification and excitement for her,” he said.

Ms Beljic asked if this meant Shasha had a “tendency to be unable to say no” when asked to do sexual acts and if that meant Shasha was at risk of re-offending.

Dr Furst said that kind of response was not “black-and-white”, but instead was driven by specific triggers.

“It would elevate her risk if she was in a position of trust around teenagers again [and] if she was in that role, potentially,” he said.

“But in the general community, I don’t see it [raising that risk].”

On Tuesday, Ms Beljic called on the court to impose a sentence of imprisonment on Shasha, while her barrister, Sam Pararajasingham, asked for a sentence in the community.

He said Shasha “genuinely [had a] belief” the boy was 16 when he was in reality younger, Mr Pararajasingham argued, because she was “naive”.

“He used his persuasive skills, convincing his woman 10 years his senior to send nude images [that] he circulated on social media for his own purposes,” he said.

“He himself admitted in evidence that he had an interest in convincing her that he was 16 years of age.”

Mr Pararajasingham also asked the court to consider the “persistent abuse and vilification” Shasha had received since the guilty verdicts.

He said she had been sent multiple insulting messages, including earlier that day.

“[The] vilification the offender has received, the calls she has received, the taunts she has received goes beyond what one would expect in any criminal proceedings,” he said.

Acting Justice John Burns will hand down his sentence on a future date. Shasha’s bail was continued.

If this story has raised any concerns for you, 1800RESPECT, the national 24-hour sexual assault, family and domestic violence counselling line, can be contacted on 1800 737 732. Help and support are also available through the Canberra Rape Crisis Centre on 02 6247 2525, the Domestic Violence Crisis Service ACT 02 6280 0900, the Sexual Violence Legal Services on 6257 4377 and Lifeline on 13 11 14. In an emergency, call Triple Zero.