Child Exploitation Material (CEM) Offences

If police have just raided you: urgent first steps

If police have executed a search warrant, seized your devices, or asked you to take part in an interview, what you do in the next 48 hours matters more than almost anything that follows.

1. Say nothing beyond your name and address. Admissions made during a search or interview, even ones that feel harmless or explanatory, are routinely the strongest evidence in these prosecutions. You are entitled to decline an interview.
2. Do not delete anything or touch any account. Deletion after a search can be charged separately and destroys negotiating positions that might have helped you.
3. Do not tell anyone who doesn’t need to know. These allegations are reputation-critical. Speak to a lawyer first: our advice is confidential, and so is the fact you contacted us.
4. Get advice before charges are laid if you can. Some of our best results (including charges never being laid, and fines with no conviction recorded) came because the client engaged us (and the right treating psychologist) before their first court date.

Contact us any time, day or night. There is no judgement here: our job is your defence, your future and your family’s stability.

What is considered child exploitation material?

Child exploitation material (CEM) is the Queensland term for what is commonly known as child pornography. Child abuse material (CAM) is the term used for charges under the Commonwealth Criminal Code.

In Queensland, the definition in section 207A of the Criminal Code (Qld) covers photos, videos, stories, and drawings which depict a person (or a representation of a person) who is, or apparently is, under 16 years in a sexual context, an offensive or demeaning context, or being subjected to abuse, cruelty or torture, in a way likely to cause offence to a reasonable adult.

Under Commonwealth legislation, the definition of CAM is wider: it covers material involving a person who is, or appears to be, under 18 years of age (as opposed to 16 in Queensland), and it has no requirement that the material would cause offence to a reasonable adult. Where a person faces both state and Commonwealth charges, the applicable definition differs charge by charge, and that difference can decide whether a given file is illegal at all.

Penalties for CEM and CAM offences

Maximum penalties as at 3 July 2026, under the Criminal Code (Qld) and the Criminal Code (Cth):

Three sentencing rules make these charges unlike almost anything else in criminal law:

• Actual imprisonment is the starting point in Queensland. Since September 2020, s 9(4)(c) of the Penalties and Sentences Act requires an actual term of imprisonment for a CEM offence unless there are exceptional circumstances. Our article on exceptional circumstances and recorded convictions explains how that battle is fought and won.
• Some Commonwealth offences carry mandatory minimum sentences. For a first offence, the basic carriage-service offences (ss 474.22 and 474.22A) carry no mandatory minimum, but the aggravated and electronic-service offences carry minimums of 5 or 7 years (Crimes Act 1914 (Cth) s 16AAA), and a second or subsequent child sexual abuse offence triggers minimums of around 4 years even for the basic offences (s 16AAB). Courts can go below a minimum only for an early plea or cooperation, capped at 25% each (s 16AAC). See our article on mandatory minimum sentences.
• Conviction brings the reportable offender regime (see below).

What the prosecution must prove

A CEM charge is not proved just because illegal files existed on a device you own. Depending on the charge, the prosecution must establish beyond reasonable doubt that:

• the material actually meets the legal definition of CEM or CAM (file by file: apparent age, context, and for Queensland charges the reasonable-adult element);
• you knowingly possessed or controlled it: that you knew the material was there and had the ability to deal with it. Cached thumbnails, system-generated files, automated downloads and files buried in unallocated space frequently fail this element;
• you were the person who possessed, accessed, transmitted or distributed it, not someone else with access to the device, the network, or the account; and
• for distribution and carriage-service charges, that the alleged transmission actually happened as the logs claim.

Every one of those elements can be tested, and the evidence for them lives in forensic reports most lawyers never properly read. That is where our practice is different.

How these investigations start

If you’ve been charged with possessing child exploitation material or child abuse material, it is most often because police received a tipoff about a specific IP address, username, or email address, or tracked IP addresses downloading torrents.

For example, we have seen many cases of apps like Kik or websites such as MEGA (mega.nz) reporting users sharing illegal material. In other cases, police use specialist software such as the Child Exploitation Tracking System (CETS) and its Australian counterpart ANVIL to monitor peer-to-peer file sharing networks like BitTorrent and identify IP addresses sharing known CEM. The resulting logs typically form the basis of the search warrant application. They get police to your door, but the charges themselves are based on what is actually found on your devices during the subsequent forensic examination.

Once the IP address can be matched to a street address, police then apply for a search warrant, which is usually executed by Taskforce ARGOS (a specialist unit), or a local Child Protection Investigation Unit (CPIU). A team of police then arrive at your doorstep early one morning and conduct a preliminary analysis of your computers, hard drives, USBs, phones and other electronic devices using in-field triage software, commonly ADF Solutions (Digital Evidence Investigator or Triage Investigator), to determine whether devices contain CEM and whether a full forensic extraction is warranted.

Mobile phones are typically extracted on-scene or shortly after using Cellebrite UFED (Universal Forensic Extraction Device), the industry-standard tool used by Australian law enforcement to pull data from smartphones including messages, images, app data, deleted files and location history. All seized devices are then taken for full laboratory analysis.

Any admissions made by you during the search warrant or later interview can be used against you. If evidence is found on any devices, then you will be charged with an offence or several offences, depending on what the data reveals. The forensic analysis of the material will then form the basis on which a court will sentence you, or a jury will be asked to find you guilty.

Other common charges we encounter include:

• section 474.22: using a carriage service to access, transmit, or solicit child abuse material
• section 228B: making child exploitation material
• section 218B: grooming
• section 228C: distributing child exploitation material

Analysis and grading of material

Sentencing for CEM charges is primarily based on an analysis of the quantity and seriousness of the material downloaded, accessed, created, or distributed. That means the court will consider the total amount of images and videos, but with a primary focus on the category of material (i.e. how offensive it is).

For Commonwealth charges like using a carriage service to access or distribute child abuse material, there may not be images or videos which can be categorised, because they were deleted, or only existed in a temporary format. Therefore, the court will look at other factors such as the length of time the offending occurred over and the amount and type of files shared or accessed (if that evidence is available).

LACE reports in Queensland CEM cases: what they are and why they matter

Police use a categorisation system now known as the Australian Child Abuse Categorisation System (ACACS), also referred to as the Interpol Baseline Scale (IBS). The ACACS/IBS scale involves categorising material into either Category 1 or Category 2 (see table below).

The reports produced using this scale are known as LACE reports, which is a reference to the program used to grade material: BlueBear LACE (Law Enforcement Against Child Exploitation). This software primarily uses hash values of files to match them against a database of previously categorised files.

The LACE report is much more than a category tally

A common misconception, sometimes reflected in the prosecution’s approach to disclosure, is that a LACE report is simply a sentencing tool to show how many files fall into Category 1 or Category 2. This misunderstands what the report actually contains and what it is used for.

The BlueBear LACE software is a purpose-built forensic tool used by law enforcement agencies worldwide. It does not merely count and classify files. It extracts files from seized devices, records their properties and location on the device, matches files against hash value databases of known material, and can assist with facial detection for victim identification purposes.

The LACE report produced by that process provides, for each file, a record of:

• File type: whether the file is an image, video, document or other format;
• File properties: including file name, file size and creation or modification dates;
• Device location: where on the seized device the file was stored, including folder paths;
• Hash values: the unique digital fingerprint assigned to each file, used to match it against known databases of classified material; and
• Metadata: additional embedded data about how and when a file was created, accessed or transferred.

Why the LACE report matters to your CEM defence

This information is essential at every stage of a CEM proceeding, well before any question of sentencing arises. A defence lawyer reviewing a LACE report is able to:

• Assess whether each file actually meets the legal definition of CEM or CAM: under s 207A (Qld) or s 473.1 (Cth), whose different elements are set out above. Where a defendant faces both state and Commonwealth charges, the applicable definition will differ depending on the charge, and this distinction can be significant in assessing the strength of the case against each file identified in the LACE report.
• Identify and challenge misclassified files: hash value matching is not infallible. Database errors and false positives occur, and a file may be matched to a hash associated with known CEM without the file itself being illegal. In our experience, many files are incorrectly included in reports that are cached, thumbnails or system-generated files that a user could never knowingly possess. Without reviewing the LACE report, a defence lawyer cannot identify these errors.
• Negotiate with the prosecution to reduce charges: where files are misclassified or borderline, early review of the LACE report allows the defence to make targeted submissions to police prosecutors or the DPP to have charges reduced or discontinued before a committal hearing.
• Prepare cross-examination of the forensic officer: including challenging the reliability of the hash database used, the manner of extraction, or whether file metadata supports the prosecution’s account of knowing possession.
• Make submissions on whether a prima facie case exists: at the committal stage, the defence is entitled to know the full scope of the alleged offending. The LACE report is the primary tool by which that assessment is made.
• Advise their client properly on plea: given the actual-imprisonment rule discussed above, the decision whether to plead guilty, contest charges, or seek to resolve matters by negotiation is one of the most consequential decisions a defendant will make. That decision cannot be properly made without the defence lawyer first reviewing the LACE report in full.

In short, the LACE report is not just a sentencing document; it is the foundational forensic record of the case against a defendant, and it is indispensable to the proper conduct of the defence from the moment charges are laid.

Other forensic reports used in CEM cases

The LACE report is not the only forensic document generated in a CEM investigation. Depending on the devices seized and the nature of the charges, police may also produce:

• Cellebrite Physical Analyser (UFED) reports: everything extracted from a phone or tablet: messages, images, app data, browser history, deleted files, location data and file timestamps. Often the primary evidence in distribution charges involving apps like Telegram, Kik, WhatsApp or Signal; and, in our experience, these reports frequently contain material that helps the defence, such as evidence of automated downloads, cached files, and context the prosecution doesn’t highlight.
• EnCase / FTK reports: deep forensic analysis of computers and hard drives, covering the entire file system including deleted files, unallocated space and access timestamps. Can show whether a file was deliberately saved or merely cached by a browser, often the heart of a lack-of-knowledge defence.
• Magnet AXIOM reports: cross-platform analysis of computers, phones and cloud data, particularly strong on social media artefacts and browser activity; often used alongside Cellebrite and frequently reveals how material was accessed and whether that access was intentional.
• CETS / ANVIL reports: the peer-to-peer monitoring logs (IP address, files allegedly shared, timestamps) that police gathered before the search warrant was ever issued. Everything about them can be challenged: the IP attribution, whether the files were actually CEM, and who was using the device at the time.

In our experience, many defendants are committed to trial (and some plead guilty) without ever having seen the full suite of forensic reports in their case. An experienced CEM lawyer identifies every report that should exist, demands its production, and scrutinises each one before any advice on plea is given.

Defences: how CEM charges are contested

Every defence starts with the forensic record. The recurring battlegrounds are:

• Knowledge and control: cached files, thumbnails, automated app downloads, files in unallocated space, and material a user could not have known existed do not amount to knowing possession.
• Attribution: shared households, shared computers, open or compromised wi-fi, and shared accounts all raise the question of who possessed or transmitted the material.
• Definition challenges: file-by-file analysis of whether material actually meets the s 207A or s 473.1 definition, including apparent-age disputes.
• Charge negotiation: where some files are defensible and others are not, early, targeted submissions to the prosecution can reduce the charge, the schedule of facts, or both. The difference between an agreed schedule with 20 files and one with 200 can be the difference between imprisonment and probation.

If the evidence is strong and you decide to plead guilty, the defence work changes shape but does not stop: the fight becomes exceptional circumstances, the recording of a conviction, and keeping you out of actual custody. We refer every client to offence-specific treatment with leading forensic psychologists at the start of the matter, not the week before sentence, because early, genuine treatment is the single most powerful factor in the outcomes we achieve.

The register: reportable offender obligations and Daniel’s Law

A conviction for a CEM or CAM offence makes you a reportable offender under the Child Protection (Offender Reporting and Offender Prohibition Order) Act 2004 (Qld): reporting your personal details, devices, accounts and movements to police for 10 years, 20 years or life for offences committed on or after 1 October 2023 (our reportable offender guide explains the regime in detail).

Since 31 December 2025, “Daniel’s Law” has added a three-tier public disclosure scheme: a public website naming non-compliant offenders whose whereabouts are unknown, locality-based photo access for certain high-risk offenders, and a parent/guardian right to ask whether a specific person is a reportable offender. Our article on Daniel’s Law covers how it works.

This is one of the most important reasons to fight for no conviction recorded where it is open: reportable offender obligations generally do not apply where no conviction is recorded. It is also why sentence proceedings in these matters deserve far more preparation than they often receive.

Discretion and confidentiality

We understand what is at stake beyond the courtroom: your employment, your profession, your family, and your name. These matters are handled personally by the principal, appointments can be made by phone or video, and we never discuss your matter with anyone without your instructions. Contacting us is itself confidential, including for people who have not been charged and are worried about something in their past or an active investigation.

Why you need George Criminal Lawyers

CEM and CAM defence is a core focus of this practice. We believe no firm in Queensland knows the digital evidence in these cases better, and the real outcomes below are why we hold that view.

These cases are decided on digital evidence, and Andrew George is a criminal lawyer with a working software background: he built GOAT, the criminal-law platform used by hundreds of Queensland legal practitioners, and he reads the Cellebrite, LACE and computer forensic reports in your case himself rather than taking the prosecution’s summary of them at face value.

It is vital that you have a lawyer who not only understands the law, but, most importantly, the technological aspects of the evidence. This includes an extensive understanding of torrent software such as uTorrent and BitTorrent, apps such as Telegram, Kik, Signal, and WhatsApp, and anonymising technology such as VPNs and Tor. It is also vital that your lawyer understands technical aspects of operating systems including cache files, deleted files, temporary internet files and private browsing data.

Forensic computer reports are frequently ignored by lawyers because they don’t understand them, which means they don’t carefully examine evidence that can prove or disprove the allegations, or help negotiate the facts. Even the more simple LACE reports are misunderstood, with important details overlooked such as the number of unique files, duplicates, and deleted files. We read every report, and we have had clients acquitted at trial (including a not guilty verdict in the Brisbane District Court built on our cross-examination of the metadata the prosecution relied on) and charges discontinued before trial because the forensic record did not say what the prosecution claimed.

When it comes to pleading guilty and being sentenced, our approach is tailored to your specific circumstances because there is no “one size fits all” for these matters. We investigate your background, health and circumstances, refer you to leading psychologists and psychiatrists from day one, and build the exceptional-circumstances case that keeps people out of prison and, wherever possible, without a recorded conviction.

These are not cases for a generalist approach. We hand-pick the barrister for your case from counsel we have worked with in CEM matters, we know exactly what needs to be done to defend you, and everything you tell us stays confidential from the first call. Contact us now to get started.

Frequently asked questions

Will I go to jail for a CEM offence in Queensland?

Queensland law makes actual imprisonment the starting point unless there are exceptional circumstances, but exceptional circumstances are found regularly, and several of our clients have received probation or fines with no conviction recorded. The outcome turns on the seriousness of the material, your circumstances, and above all the preparation: early offence-specific treatment, a properly negotiated schedule of facts, and expert reports. No lawyer can promise you an outcome; what we can promise is that nothing that could help you will be left undone.

Can I avoid a recorded conviction?

Sometimes, yes. Where a court can be persuaded that imprisonment is not required, non-custodial orders such as probation can be imposed without recording a conviction, which also generally keeps you off the reportable offender register. Our article on exceptional circumstances and recorded convictions walks through a real Court of Appeal example.

Will I be on the sex offender register?

If a conviction is recorded for a CEM or CAM offence, reportable offender obligations follow automatically, for 10 years, 20 years or life depending on the offending and when it occurred. Since 31 December 2025, Daniel’s Law also allows public disclosure of some offenders’ details. See our reportable offender guide.

The police kept my phone and computer. Will I get them back?

Devices seized under a warrant are usually held until the matter is finalised, and devices on which illegal material is found are ordinarily forfeited. Devices belonging to family members that contain nothing illegal can often be recovered. Ask us to press for their early return.

I haven’t been charged yet. Should I wait?

No. The period between a search and a charging decision is when the most valuable defence work happens: engaging with the forensic timeline, managing any interview requests, and starting treatment where appropriate. It is also when you are most vulnerable to talking yourself into a charge. Get advice now; the conversation is confidential.

Related Articles

‹

Daniel’s Law: Queensland’s Public Child Sex Offender Register Explained

7 October 2025

8 minute read

Exceptional circumstances and recorded convictions in CEM cases

9 April 2024

7 minute read

What does it mean to be a reportable offender in Queensland?

3 August 2021

15 minute read

›