A sentencing decision by Victoria’s County Court has generated widespread public debate after a Melbourne chef convicted of sexual assault avoided imprisonment, with the presiding judge taking into account expert evidence that incarceration would be significantly more difficult because the offender now identifies as a transgender woman.
Thawat Prommachan, 32, was convicted by a jury in December 2025 on two counts of sexual assault arising from an incident involving another man whom he met through the dating application Grindr in February 2024. The jury found him not guilty on two separate rape charges.
According to the sentencing remarks, the victim had agreed to what was intended to be a therapeutic, non-sexual massage. During the encounter, the complainant repeatedly withdrew consent and told Prommachan to stop. The prosecution argued that the assaults continued despite those repeated refusals.
Following the incident, police interviewed Prommachan, who acknowledged that he understood the complainant had not consented. During that interview he admitted that once someone says “no”, he should not continue, although he said he found it difficult to stop because he was already sexually aroused. Those admissions later formed part of the evidence considered during the proceedings.
The victim described profound and lasting consequences in a victim impact statement presented to the court. He said the assault resulted in post-traumatic stress, affected his sexual functioning, caused him to feel physically unsafe, left him temporarily unable to work and led to a significant loss of income.
Sexual assault offences of this nature carry a maximum penalty of 10 years’ imprisonment under Victorian law. However, sentencing judges are required to consider numerous statutory factors, including the seriousness of the offending, denunciation, deterrence, rehabilitation, protection of the community and the offender’s personal circumstances.
Judge Kate Hawkins ultimately imposed a two-year Community Corrections Order requiring Prommachan to complete 250 hours of unpaid community work rather than serve an immediate prison sentence.
During sentencing, the court noted that Prommachan had begun openly identifying as a transgender woman after criminal charges were laid and had commenced gender-affirming medical treatment.
The judge relied in part on evidence from forensic psychiatrist Professor Rajan Darjee, who assessed the offender as presenting a relatively low risk of future sexual offending. The psychiatrist also told the court that imprisonment could expose the offender to an elevated risk of harassment, violence, segregation and psychological deterioration because of her transgender status.
Judge Hawkins accepted that transgender prisoners can face particular risks within correctional environments and said those circumstances could properly be considered as one factor when determining an appropriate sentence. At the same time, she emphasised that the offending was serious and required punishment, concluding that the objectives of denunciation, rehabilitation and general deterrence could be achieved through a Community Corrections Order in this case.
The decision has generated considerable public reaction.
Critics argue that serious sexual offences ordinarily warrant custodial sentences and question whether personal vulnerabilities after conviction should substantially influence punishment. Some commentators have also raised concerns about public confidence in the justice system, particularly where victims may perceive that the sentence does not adequately reflect the seriousness of the offending.
Others note that Australian sentencing law requires judges to consider the individual circumstances of every offender rather than applying automatic penalties. Courts regularly receive psychiatric reports addressing mental health, rehabilitation prospects, medical conditions and prison vulnerability when determining an appropriate sentence.
Legal experts point out that sentencing decisions are rarely based on a single factor. Instead, judges weigh numerous considerations established by legislation and appellate court decisions before arriving at an appropriate outcome.
The case has also renewed discussion about how correctional systems accommodate transgender prisoners.
Correctional authorities across Australia have developed policies intended to balance the safety of transgender prisoners, other inmates and correctional staff. Those arrangements vary depending on individual risk assessments, medical circumstances and operational considerations.
The broader debate extends beyond this individual case.
Victim advocacy groups continue calling for stronger sentences in serious sexual assault matters, arguing that greater emphasis should be placed on community expectations and deterrence. At the same time, criminal justice experts caution that sentencing must remain consistent with established legal principles requiring courts to consider all relevant evidence before imposing punishment.
The Victorian case illustrates the difficult balance sentencing judges must strike between protecting the community, recognising the harm suffered by victims, encouraging rehabilitation and ensuring that punishment remains proportionate to both the offence and the offender’s circumstances.
Whether the sentence ultimately becomes the subject of an appeal or prompts wider discussion about sentencing policy remains to be seen. For now, the decision has become another high-profile example of how complex and closely scrutinised judicial sentencing can be in cases involving serious sexual offending and vulnerable offenders.
