A judge has faced fierce criticism after allowing a 20-year-old law student to avoid immediate imprisonment despite his conviction for creating sexually explicit AI-generated material featuring a teenage girl.
William Hamish Yeates, from Netherby in Adelaide, appeared in the South Australian District Court last week for sentencing.
He pleaded guilty to two charges of creating or altering sexual material without consent between October 2024 and February 2025.
During a five-month campaign of abuse, Yeates manipulated a graduation photograph of his 17-year-old victim before uploading AI-generated images and videos to a pornographic website and the social media platform X through multiple accounts.
The former private school student was the first person convicted under Australia’s new laws. He was sentenced to two years and three months in prison, but the term was suspended on the condition that he enter a three-year $500 good behaviour bond.
The sentence has triggered widespread anger on social media and online forums, with many Australians questioning why Yeates was not sent to jail.
Some said avoiding prison amounted to ‘not even a slap on the wrist’, while others questioned what message the decision sent to men who engage in AI-facilitated sexual abuse.
‘That’s supposed to deter others from doing the same thing to another innocent woman. The law is its own worst enemy. Delusional,’ one user said.
William Hamish Yeates avoided immediate jail after pleading guilty to two charges of creating or altering sexual material without consent
Yeates manipulated his 17-year-old victim’s graduation photograph and uploaded AI-generated images and videos to a pornographic website and social media platform
A second person wrote: ‘Seriously, this is a disgrace. What about his victim? Does she not get any justice for the anguish and humiliation… this sentence is far too lenient.’
Melinda Tankard Reist, co-founder of campaign group Collective Shout, told the Daily Mail the organisation was ‘deeply disappointed’ by the outcome.
She warned that the ruling could discourage victims from pursuing justice instead of deterring people who commit technology-facilitated sexual abuse.
‘It sends girls a message that you go through this ordeal, you have to sit in court, you have to confront your abuser and there’s no outcome for you,’ she said.
‘Therefore, creating more traumatised women, more traumatised girls in the future. There will be no outcome for you and no real deterrent for other boys.’
Ms Reist said District Court Judge Anne Barnett had used ‘very strong’ language to condemn Yeates’ conduct, words which, viewed alone, appeared to support a more serious sentence.
In handing down the sentence, Judge Barnett said the offending had ‘degraded and humiliated’ the young victim.
‘The creation and dissemination of degrading sexualised material without consent is capable of causing profound humiliation, distress and long-lasting harm, and it undoubtedly has in this case,’ she said.
Collective Shout co-founder Melinda Tankard Reist (pictured) said the group was ‘deeply disappointed’ by the sentencing decision
District Court Judge Anne Barnett said Yeates’ offending had ‘degraded and humiliated’ his young victim
‘She [the victim] remains frightened the content you created will resurface and is anxious it will continue to follow her in the future.
‘Your offending has tainted what were and should be happy memories for her.’
Judge Barnett found that Yeates had not acted with ‘malicious intent’ and had become desensitised through exposure to online content.
The court heard Yeates was aged between 15 and 16 when he became immersed in online communities focused on pornography, misogyny and controversial influencer Andrew Tate.
DISCOVER MORE: Illinois House Speaker Emanuel Chris Welch Explains Decision Not to Seek Another Term: It’s About Doing What’s Right
Ms Reist said the online communities often known as the ‘manosphere’ were increasingly influential, but argued they did not absolve Yeates of responsibility.
‘That boy under the law is an adult. He made an adult choice to do this to this girl and cause her lifelong trauma,’ she said.
‘Yes, they [boys] are marinating in a toxic environment but it does not remove agency. It does not remove choice.
‘They still have moral agency and culpability and if we take that away from boys, what we’re saying is that boys can’t control themselves.’
District Judge Anne Barnett accepted that Yeates’ conduct was not motivated by malice and said he had become desensitised by online content
Ms Reist also challenged the use of Yeates’ undiagnosed autism as a mitigating factor during sentencing.
She has written to the Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions asking whether prosecutors plan to appeal the decision within the 21-day window.
Tarang Chawla, an advocate against men’s violence, also condemned the sentence, saying it sent a ‘bleak’ message to women and girls across Australia.
Mr Chawla co-founded Not One More Niki, an Australian victim-led movement working to end male violence against women, after his sister Nikita was brutally murdered by her husband.
‘For women and girls the message is bleak,’ he wrote on social media after the sentencing.
‘We can pass laws against your abuse, acknowledge the profound harm caused but the man responsible can still walk out of court while you live in fear that those images will resurface.
‘She has to live with what he did. He has to promise to behave himself. Aren’t we already on a good behaviour bond? I thought that was called the law.’
In a separate post, Mr Chawla criticised Judge Barnett’s conclusion that Yeates lacked ‘malicious intent’ and had been desensitised by misogynistic online communities.
Advocate against men’s violence Tarang Chawla criticised the sentencing decision
‘Yeates said he found belonging in online spaces where women were being objectified and misogyny was being reinforced,’ Mr Chawla said.
‘And yet, we seem willing to accept that an offender says he did it because it helped him “belong”.
‘The victim is scared about how this material will ruin her life and her future, while a Judge takes into consideration the future of a man who made a conscious choice to do a series of actions that resulted in trying to shame and embarrass a woman in order to be “one of the boys”.’
When the Daily Mail approached Judge Barnett for comment, a spokesperson said: ‘Judges do not comment on judicial decisions or sentencing remarks.’
Distinguished Professor Asher Flynn, from Monash University’s ARC Centre of Excellence for the Elimination of Violence Against Women, told the Daily Mail that many people could see Yeates’ sentence as ‘sitting at odds’ with the seriousness of the offending.
‘Sexualised deepfake abuse constitutes a serious form of technology-facilitated sexual violence rather than a harmless prank or technological novelty,’ she said.
‘The new federal offences were introduced to address a growing gap in the law and to recognise that sexualised deepfake abuse is a serious form of image-based sexual abuse.
‘From that perspective, some may view a suspended sentence and recognisance release order as sitting at odds with the strong symbolic message underpinning the reforms.’
Yeates also pleaded guilty to two charges of using a carriage service to menace, harass or cause offence, along with one charge of using a carriage service to make personal data available.
He was ordered to cover the victim’s medical expenses and forfeit a phone and laptop seized by police.