Child Exploitation Material (CEM) Offences

Child Exploitation Material in Queensland is defined under Section 207A of the Criminal Code as material depicting a person under 16 (or appearing to be under 16) in a sexual, offensive, or abusive context that would likely offend a reasonable adult. This includes photographs, videos, written descriptions, drawings, computer-generated images, and animations depicting minors in sexual contexts, offensive situations, or being subjected to abuse, cruelty, or torture.

The definition is notably broader than many people realise, extending beyond just photographic content to include written materials and digitally created content. Queensland law specifically applies to depictions of persons under 16, while Commonwealth legislation covers persons under 18.

A critical distinction in CEM cases is that the material doesn’t need to show real children—computer-generated images, animations, or written descriptions can still qualify as CEM under Queensland law if they depict what appears to be a person under 16 in a prohibited context.

Since September 2020, Queensland law requires actual imprisonment for CEM offences unless “exceptional circumstances” exist. Factors courts consider when determining exceptional circumstances include the nature of the material, offender characteristics, rehabilitation prospects, psychological reports, and demonstration of remorse. While individual factors may not be exceptional alone, their combined effect might establish exceptional circumstances.

The legislative change represents a significant shift in sentencing practices for CEM offences. Previously, courts had greater discretion in sentencing, but the current approach emphasises the serious nature of these offences and the need for deterrence.

For CEM possession offences, maximum penalties range from 14 years imprisonment to 20 years (if hidden networks or anonymizing services were used). More serious offences like involving a child in making CEM can attract penalties up to 25 years imprisonment. The classification of material using the Interpol Baseline System (replacing the previous Oliver Scale) significantly impacts sentencing severity.

After being charged with a CEM offence in Queensland, immediate steps include securing legal representation, bail application if in custody, and preparation for first court appearance. The prosecution will provide a brief of evidence containing digital forensic reports, witness statements, and technical evidence about how the material was obtained, stored, or shared.

The case will progress through mentions, committal hearings, and potentially to trial depending on the plea entered. CEM cases are typically heard in the District Court due to their serious nature. Throughout this process, technical evidence will be analyzed, including device forensics, metadata examination, and material classification.

If convicted, an offender will be placed on the Child Protection Offender Register, requiring compliance with reporting obligations for at least 10 years. This includes regularly updating personal details, reporting changes in circumstances, and notifying authorities of any contact with children. Failure to comply with these reporting obligations carries a maximum penalty of 5 years imprisonment.

Defence strategies for CEM charges include technical defences (e.g., challenging digital evidence collection, questioning search warrant execution), establishing lack of knowledge or intent (e.g., unknowing downloads, malware presence), and demonstrating exceptional circumstances to avoid imprisonment. Psychological assessments and participation in treatment programs can be crucial in establishing rehabilitation prospects.

For contested charges, scrutinising the technical aspects of the evidence is essential. This includes examining metadata, challenging the chain of custody for digital evidence, and questioning whether proper procedures were followed during device seizure and analysis. Expert witnesses in digital forensics may be required to evaluate the prosecution’s technical evidence.

For those pleading guilty, the focus shifts to demonstrating “exceptional circumstances” exist to avoid mandatory imprisonment. This often involves comprehensive psychological/psychiatric reports, evidence of rehabilitation efforts, assessment of risk factors, and addressing any underlying issues. The combined effect of multiple factors may establish exceptional circumstances even when individual factors alone wouldn’t qualify.