The former partner of an NRL player has been described as naive but well-intentioned by a magistrate who found her guilty of distributing a pornographic photo of the player and his new partner.
The woman, who cannot be named for legal reasons, faced two charges of recording and distributing revenge porn.
She became aware of the pornographic pictures and videos of the NRL player and his new wife when her young children and their two friends found them on an iPad.
The material had been saved on the wife's iPhone in a "hidden" folder and had synced to the iPad used by the children without her knowing.
At the request of the mother of the other children who had seen the content, the woman forwarded a thumbnail of one of the images.
Magistrate Glenn Bartley found her guilty of distributing the image but not guilty of the recording charge, ruling it was not a case of revenge porn.
He said a reasonable person would accept the woman had taken photos of the material with another device because she was concerned about the welfare of the children.
But on the distribution charge, Mr Bartley ruled the woman's conduct was not acceptable as she could have simply described what was depicted to her friend rather than send it.
"The dimensions of the photo were limited, the features were limited, it could be easily have been described verbally or orally," he said.
Mr Bartley did not convict the woman but imposed a two-year conditional release order.
Defence lawyer Christopher Cole said his client intended to appeal the verdict.
In a hearing prior to the judgment, police prosecutor Craig Pullen argued the woman was motivated to share the images due to the hostile relationship she had with her former partner and his new wife.
"This was evidence, this was material that she simply wanted to use to explore a position of power at a later date if necessary," Senior Sergeant Pullen told the court.
But Mr Bartley disagreed with this characterisation and said the woman had made a copy of the images because she was concerned about the children's welfare after they had seen the material.
"This is not a revenge porn case and she had good motives in the nature of child welfare," Mr Bartley said.
Mr Cole said a reasonable person would agree the woman had acted as any other mother would.
He said any suggestion that the images would be further distributed beyond the woman's friend, who had asked to see the photos so she could discuss them with her children, was hypothetical.
"(Think about) a person in her circumstances: a mother with young children in circumstances where another mother had her two children exposed and asked the accused to send the image," he told the court.
But Mr Bartley ultimately concluded sending the image, even if well-intentioned, was "naive" and "careless" given the risk to the privacy of her former partner and his new wife.
