Child exploitation material (CEM) charges

Queensland offences relate broadly to the actual possession, distribution or making of child exploitation material, while the Commonwealth offences relate to the use of a carriage service. As such, it is common to see a person charged under both Queensland and Commonwealth legislation. The courts are able to deal with all of these offences together and the matter will likely proceed to the District Court.

In our experience, most of these matters resolve by way of a plea of guilty and a sentence. As these types of offences are not uncommon, mistakes can sometimes be made in relation to the charge or the facts. As a result, we may be required to negotiate one or more of the charges and the facts of those charge/s with the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions.

Our role at Aegis Law Group goes beyond negotiation to working with our clients towards the most favourable outcome available in a person's circumstances. A common concern for many clients is the likely penalty which could be imposed. To address that, there are a few considerations.

The law typically recognises that a term of imprisonment should generally be regarded as a last resort and that it is preferable for someone to remain in the community. However, under the Penalties and Sentences Act 1992, this principle does not apply to child exploitation material offences or sexual offences against a child under 16. For these offences, the offender must serve an actual term of imprisonment, unless there are exceptional circumstances. In relation to penalty, there are a number of further considerations under the Act which the court must take into account.

Source: Penalties and Sentences Act 1992 (Qld), s 9(4) to (7) (current as at 29 October 2026). Penalties and the law change from time to time, so please get advice about your own matter before relying on these figures.

Nature of the material

The court will usually consider the apparent age of the child and the activity shown. In Queensland, the material will be classified by assessing the apparent age, as well as the nature and seriousness of the seized material. The results of this assessment are provided to the Queensland Police Service in the form of a C4P case report. The case report previously relied upon the Oliver Scale, which classified the material across five categories in terms of seriousness. In more recent cases, to satisfy the requirements of section 9(7) of the Act, there have been examples of details from the seized material being relied upon at sentencing. This includes the nature of the material, including the apparent age and activity depicted.

Age and character

In our experience, people charged with these offences come from a wide range of backgrounds, are often employed full-time, and on some occasions, the alleged offending may be out of character. Under section 9(6A) of the Act, however, good character is not a mitigating factor if it assisted the offender to commit the offence.

To further assess the penalty, the court may also have regard to antecedents. Antecedents are information about the person charged, and may be provided in the form of medical, psychiatric and/or any other relevant report. This enables the court to assess the prospects of rehabilitation, including the availability of any medical or psychiatric treatment to cause the offender to behave in a way that is acceptable to the community.