The first Australian convicted under new deepfake laws after creating degrading and humiliating sexually explicit AI content of a teenage girl has avoided jail time.

William Hamish Yeates, a law student from the southern Adelaide suburb of Netherby, appeared before the South Australian District Court on Tuesday.

The 20-year-old pleaded guilty to two counts of creating or altering sexual material without consent between October 2024 and February 2025. 

Yeates was slapped with two years and three months' prison but his jail time was suspended on the condition he enter a three-year $500 good behaviour bond.

In a five-month campaign of abuse, Yeates doctored his victim's graduation photo and posted AI-created images and videos to pornographic website Ero Me and on social media platform X under multiple accounts.

He also pleaded guilty to two counts of using a carriage service to menace, harass or cause offence and a count of using a carriage service to make personal data available.    

Yeates, who graduated from Mercedes College in Adelaide, a $20,000-a-year private school, was 18 years old at the time of his offending. 

His victim, who was 17 years old at the time, previously told the court she believed Yeates was somebody she thought she could trust. 

The University of Adelaide law student became the first person in Australia to be convicted under federal laws introduced in 2024 to combat the rise of deepfake pornography. 

The court heard Yeates was 15 to 16 when he became absorbed in online communities centred on pornography, misogyny and the controversial influencer and alleged rapist Andrew Tate.

In handing down her sentence, District Court Judge Anne Barnett said the offending 'degraded and humiliated' his young victim. 

'The first time she saw her Year 12 graduation photo was on a pornographic website', Judge Barnett said.

'As a consequence, she now reflects on her graduation day, not with pride in her achievements, but with the torment of the memories of the altered content.

'She remains frightened the content you created will resurface and is anxious it will continue to follow her in the future.

'She now questions her judgment and whether she can trust other people. Your offending has tainted what were and should be happy memories for her.'

However, in handing down her sentence, Judge Barnett also accepted that the offending was not motivated by malice claiming Yeates had become desensitised by online content and had shown genuine remorse. 

'You've said that you derived a sense of belonging from participation in those online communities,' Judge Barnett said. 

'You became involved in online communities for which the creation and sharing of sexualised images of women became normalised and you started seeking validation in those communities. 

'Further, that you had developed an obsessive preoccupation with the victim and had come to believe, albeit irrationally, that you were in a relationship with her.

'[Your] compulsive sexual behaviour disorder predated offending conduct and contributed to the use of pornography and ultimately led to the offending.'

Judge Barnett said her ruling took into account Yeates' mental health diagnoses, his youth, plea of guilty, expressions of remorse, engagement in treatment, absence of prior offending and prospects of rehabilitation. 

'I further accept that your youth and neurodevelopmental condition associated with your autism spectrum disorder, together with the associated social and cognitive deficits, materially influenced the development of your offending and impaired the maturity of your appreciation of its wrongfulness and likely consequences.' 

She added Yeates failed to appreciate the 'serious criminal nature' at the time of his offending but has since developed a 'greater understanding' of his actions.

Yeates was ordered to pay the victim's medical expenses and ordered to forfeit a phone and laptop computer which was seized by police.

In September, his now-19-year-old victim delivered an emotional victim impact statement telling Yeates that her face, identity and image 'were never yours to take'.

'I was not yours to expose, alter, sexualise, stalk, or dehumanise,' she said.

'You made the deliberate choice to strip away my dignity and turn me into something for your sick obsession.

'The first time I saw my actual graduation photo was on a pornographic website... every time I now see that photo, I feel sick.

'These images of me were fake, but the impact they had is painfully real. You tried to reduce me to an image on the screen, but I am so much more than that.

'If sharing my experience helps even one other victim feel seen, heard, believed, or protected, then something meaningful will come from the pain you caused. I will heal from this.'