The charges against the woman carried a maximum seven-year jail term. But as with most court cases, nothing about this woman's offending was cut and dried. The woman had not physically abused her six children, aged between three and 11 years old. Her husband, their father, was responsible for that and has previously been dealt with by the courts on multiple sexual abuse charges. Instead, the woman's cruelty charges related to her effectively not protecting her children, particularly her four oldest, by letting them be exposed to the indecent behaviour their father subjected her to. The children were present when the woman's husband used her at least eight times, allowing him to take photos of her in demeaning positions for his “private collection”, usually while heavily intoxicated so she had little memory of the acts the following morning.

The children, some of whom the court heard may be suffering from foetal alcohol syndrome due to their mother's consistent and long term abuse of alcohol, were themselves sometimes allowed to drink alcohol. The woman was aged between 23 and 27 years old when the offences occurred. The older children, just three and four. But a psychologist found this mother-of-six had not engaged in bestial and other sexual deviant acts because she received gratification from them. Rather, this sad and weary woman in the prisoner's dock, unsure of whether she should stand or sit as she was addressed by Judge Douglas McGill, SC, was a victim herself, the doctor concluded, a woman robbed of any real understanding of parental responsibility or healthy relationships by her own victimised past. Sexually and physically abused by her father as a young girl and witness to her parent's violent relationship, the woman was placed in foster care. She spent a few turbulent years as a ward and only completed part of Year 10 before she was expelled from school. Running away soon after, she attempted to reconnect with her mother in Mount Isa. There she suffered a nervous breakdown and was hospitalised.

Almost immediately after leaving hospital, she met her future husband. He was about 36 years old. She was just 17. They were married soon after meeting and the woman, then still a child herself, found herself under the control of her “abusive, volatile and manipulative” husband. He engaged in multiple affairs and was involved with both her younger and older sisters. She was cut off from her mother and family and had no friends as he would move them constantly, often to regional and remote communities where she would find herself isolated from all people but him. Poorly educated with just average to below average intelligence, the woman gave “passive complicity” to anything her husband wanted to do. She drank heavily and often while also using marijuana and any attempts to seek professional help for her substance abuse or psychiatric issues were thwarted by her husband. By 2009, she had six children. She allowed her husband to photograph and subject her to a growing number of indecent acts and, by association, allowed her children to be exposed to the same.

In 2010, a child who was not related to the couple made a complaint about the woman's husband. Police searched the couple's home and computer and interviewed their children. The whole story was uncovered. Prosecutor Shauna Rankine pushed for a jail sentence in court on Wednesday, arguing the children had been psychologically harmed by their exposure to deviant sexual behaviour at such a young age. The children, particularly the four eldest, were noted to now have behavioural problems; they wet their bed, threw tantrums and had anger management and self control issues. They also suffered from developmental problems. But Judge McGill had to weigh up whether the children's issues were a result of the woman's cruelty in allowing them to be exposed to the sexual acts or whether the abuse they had undergone at the hands of their father, the “instigator” was to blame. Instead, he agreed with defence barrister Kim Bryson's submission that a period of probation would better serve both the community and the woman, providing she received proper counselling and completed programs to tackle her substance abuse.

As it became clear the woman would not be jailed, her mother broke into sobs. A bailiff crossed the court floor to hand her some tissues. Two minutes later and the woman herself broke down. The bailiff made a repeat trip. Judge McGill ordered the woman to serve three years on probation; with conditions – chief among them that she seek help. He made the ruling, accepting she had been “pressured into this behaviour by your husband”. After giving his reasons and providing what appeared to be the first chance the woman had at reclaiming a normal life, Judge McGill turned to the woman and issued a personal recommendation. “The best thing you could do with your life is to get away from (your husband) and have nothing more to do with him ... that would be the best thing for you and your children,” he said.

He adjourned the court and the woman almost tripped running to her mother. They left the court room together sobbing.