Dustin Diplock: Liverpool child groomer convicted after contact with minor

A convicted child groomer released from prison early has made a bizarre excuse for why he failed to report interactions with a four-year old child.

A convicted child groomer, who was allowed to leave prison early, has given a bizarre excuse for why he didn’t report regular contact with his one-time lover’s four-year-old child.

The court heard Dustin Diplock, 39, was of the belief part of his conditions under the Child Protection Act was he only had to report if he was living with a minor.

However, when living at a Liverpool unit on his release from jail he became in regular contact with a four-year-old child, calling him ‘cutie’ and putting him on his shoulders.

Diplock had a “brief but intimate” relationship with the child’s father, the court heard.

The 39-year-old was previously convicted of using a carriage service to groom a child under 16 after he asked a person he believed to be a 14-year old boy about his porn preferences and pubic hair.

Dustin Diplock was convicted after failing to report contact with a child. Picture: Facebook

The sordid conversations included offering a spare bed for him to sleep in, calling him ‘handsome’ and ‘very mature’, and asking, “when you search porn what do you search the most?’, the court heard at the time.

That person was an undercover police officer posing as a 14 year old boy, recording the interactions.

Diplock pleaded guilty to the grooming in September 2021, and was sentenced shortly after to 20 months imprisonment.

He was released almost immediately under a Commonwealth recognisance order, given he had already served 10 months in custody after his arrest in 2020.

Diplock’s lawyer Vaikom Rajeev told the court his client was “living a less colourful crime-free life” before he was convicted of child grooming.

“Just because he has been convicted of offences in the past, does not mean he will commit offences in future” Mr Rajeev said.

Magistrate Suzanne Seagrave told the court the contact was not insubstantial and was sceptical of Diplock’s excuse, calling it “implausible”.

“Even if at the time of the offence the defendant was confused with respect to his reporting obligations under the legislation it was his responsibility to clarify it,” she said.

When sentencing Diplock, Ms Seagrave said the offences didn’t justify him being sent to prison but she did not regard the breach as a minor incident.

Diplock was convicted of breaching his reporting obligations under the child protection act, and placed on a 12-month community corrections order, to be on good behaviour.

“He certainly requires management and supervision in the community,” Ms Seagrave said. “His prospects of rehabilitation are unclear.”

The court registrar was ordered to contact the Commonwealth to report the potential breach of Diplock’s Commonwealth recognisance order.