He wasn't even sure he was dealing with a real person
In a Sydney courtroom, a young drama teacher from one of the city's most elite schools faces charges that place him at the intersection of digital vulnerability, vigilante justice, and the contested boundaries of intent. William Gulson, 28, is accused of grooming a child through a fake profile on an adult dating app — a profile operated by a 15-year-old girl attempting to catch predators online. The case asks not only what he believed, but what the law requires him to have believed, and whether a trap can also be a crime.
- A drama teacher at one of Sydney's most prestigious schools now stands accused of sending explicit sexual messages to what he thought was a 15-year-old boy — messages that were, in fact, received by a teenage girl running a sting operation.
- The defence argues Gulson had genuine reason to doubt the account was real, pointing to Grindr's adult-only restrictions and an explicit image that appeared to show a grown man.
- The prosecution counters that Gulson's messages — requesting kissing, oral sex, intercourse, and a physical meeting — demonstrate clear intent to engage in unlawful sexual activity with a minor.
- The 15-year-old operating the fake profile ended the conversation and deleted the account before any meeting occurred, leaving the case to turn entirely on the question of Gulson's knowledge and intent.
- The trial exposes a broader unease: dating apps remain porous enough for minors to operate on them, and vigilante child-protection efforts place young people directly in the path of the predatory behaviour they seek to document.
William Gulson taught drama at Knox Grammar School, one of Sydney's most expensive and prestigious institutions. In August 2024, he was charged with procuring a child under 16 for unlawful sexual activity — a charge rooted in a series of messages he sent through Grindr to an account presenting itself as a year-nine boy.
At a contested hearing at Downing Centre Local Court, Gulson pleaded not guilty. The prosecution's case was straightforward: he had expressed interest in physical contact — kissing, oral sex, intercourse — and had eventually asked to arrange a meeting. The defence did not dispute that the messages were sent. What they disputed was whether Gulson had any reason to believe he was talking to a real child at all.
His lawyer argued that Grindr's adult-only status gave Gulson grounds for scepticism, and that the conversation itself showed him questioning whether he was dealing with a person or a bot. When he asked for photos, the account returned an image that appeared to show an adult man. Before any meeting could be arranged, the 15-year-old girl operating the fake profile ended the conversation and deleted the account.
No sexual activity took place, and Gulson has remained on bail since his arrest. But the case raises questions that extend well beyond the courtroom — about the ease with which minors can access adult platforms, the legal ambiguities of intent when deception runs in both directions, and the costs borne by young people who insert themselves into the role of predator-catchers online.
William Roberto Gulson taught drama at Knox Grammar School, one of Sydney's most prestigious institutions, where annual fees run to $43,170 and boarding costs another $39,210 per student. In August 2024, he was charged with procuring a child under 16 for unlawful sexual activity. The case hinges on a series of messages he sent through Grindr, an app restricted to adults, to what he believed was a 15-year-old boy—though the account was actually operated by a 15-year-old girl and another teenager running a fake profile specifically designed to catch predators.
At a contested hearing on Monday at Downing Centre Local Court, Gulson, 28, pleaded not guilty. The prosecution laid out the sequence plainly: the fake profile presented itself as a year-nine boy, and when Gulson began messaging, he expressed interest in physical contact—kissing, oral sex, intercourse, and cuddling. The defence did not dispute that these messages were sent. What they disputed was Gulson's knowledge of who he was actually talking to.
His lawyer, Paul Glissan, argued that Gulson had reason to doubt he was communicating with a real person at all. Grindr, after all, is an adults-only platform. The text exchanges themselves, Glissan told the court, showed Gulson's skepticism—he questioned whether he was dealing with an actual person or a bot. When Gulson asked for photos, the account sent back an explicit image that appeared to show an adult man. On this basis, the defence contended that Gulson's intention was never to engage in unlawful sexual activity with a child, real or otherwise.
The conversation eventually escalated to logistics. Gulson asked if he could pick up whoever he thought he was talking to and offered to arrange a meeting place. At that point, the 15-year-old operating the account ended the conversation and deleted the profile. No sexual activity took place. Gulson has remained on bail since his arrest a year ago.
The case sits at an intersection of several uncomfortable questions. Dating apps marketed to adults have vulnerabilities that allow minors to create accounts and operate them. Vigilante efforts to catch predators online, while motivated by legitimate concern, put young people in direct contact with explicit sexual material and predatory language. And the legal question of what constitutes grooming when the person being groomed is not who they claim to be—when the entire interaction is, in some sense, a performance by both parties—remains contested in court.
Notable Quotes
He wasn't even sure that he was dealing with a real person... His intention was never to have unlawful sexual activity with anybody—whether that be a real person or a fictitious person.— Paul Glissan, Gulson's lawyer
The Hearth Conversation Another angle on the story
Why would two teenagers set up a fake profile on an adult dating app in the first place?
They were trying to catch predators. It's become a kind of vigilante operation—young people creating bait accounts to expose men who are willing to solicit minors online.
And Gulson took the bait.
He sent explicit messages to what he thought was a 15-year-old boy. But his lawyer's argument is that he didn't actually believe he was talking to a real person—that the whole thing felt like a bot or a test.
Does that matter legally?
That's what the court has to decide. If you're grooming someone, does it matter whether you knew they were real? Whether you thought the app was secure to adults only?
He asked to meet up.
Yes. He offered to pick the person up. That's when they ended it.
So the defence is essentially: I was willing to do this, but I didn't think it was real.
Exactly. And he's been waiting a year on bail while the court figures out what that means.