Cop poses as mum offering sex with her and 14yo daughter in elaborate sting

In his appeal, Bartkowski argued the verdict was unreasonable in the circumstances, and that he had simply accepted the propositions put forward by the undercover police officer, rather than “procuring” the fictitious 14-year-old to engage in sexual acts – as he was convicted of.

On November 17, 2017, the female police officer – using the pseudonym of Mel – posted the advertisement featuring her fictitious daughter, named Ash.

“Single good-looking 37-year-old single mummy … down the coast for the weekend … looking for some fun times … I have a close relationship with my young teen daughter and looking for the right man to experiment with together … must be clean and trust-worthy … no time-wasters,” it read.

Bartkowski responded: “I have been looking for something like this for ever [sic] and I would luv [sic] to meet up with yous [sic] for some fun times. I am 5ft11, 39yo, normal build, tradie, very clean and discree [sic], easy going, real and genuine and not a time waster. I have attached some pic’s [sic].”

Two pictures were attached – one of a man in a window with his face obscured, and the other was of an exposed erect penis in a man’s hand.

Mel and Bartkowski engaged in a series of text messages that night. This included messages such as:

Mel: “My 14 yo daughter wants to learn but is scared 2 do with boys from school. Been teaching her some stuff but she is into men. We are down here for wkd [the weekend] so thought might be good opp to experiment.”

Mel: “U have any questions? My daughter is a virgin … 14, but hasn’t done much for her age.”

Bartkowski: “Ok cool. I am very keen and excited to meet yous both if yous invite me.”

Later on, Mel and Bartkowski spoke on the phone, the conversation included:

Bartkowski: “I do a full body massage that leads into a lot of teasing its not to professional lol and I don’t miss any part of your body.”

Mel: “Like a naked massage?”

Bartkowski: “Yeah normally have a towel over you, until later during the massage.”

Mel: “Would you do that with both of us?”

Bartkowski: “Yeah sure would.”

Mel: “Then what would u like?”

Bartkowski: “I would do oral on you both … And yous together doing oral on me maybe?”

Mel: “Sounds like fun.”

Bartkowski: “Yes im getting a little excited thinking about it lol.”

In making his decision on the appeal, Justice Philip Morrison said there were several features of the text message exchange between Mel and Bartkowski which he said “demonstrate that the appellant was not simply acquiescing in propositions being raised, but proactively furthering them”.

“Mel only ever offered general assertions of a willingness to experiment. It was the appellant [Bartkowski] who nominated specific sexual acts, and importantly, those designed to ease the inexperienced and nervous 14-year-old daughter from one level of sexual activity to another,” Justice Morrison said in court documents.

“In my view, the appellant was plainly enticing or recruiting the 14-year-old daughter for the purposes of sexual activity. Even on the approach to ‘procure’ urged by the appellant, the conduct was done with intent to procure as it went well beyond mere passive agreement or acquiescence.

“His conduct plainly comes within the definition of ‘procure’ in section 218A of the Criminal Code.”

Justice Morrison dismissed the appeal and the other two Court of Appeal judges – Justice David Boddice and Justice James Henry – agreed with his decision.