Online child abuse committed offshore · Divisions 272 and 474 of the Criminal Code (Cth).

The charge in summary.

The AFP announced the charges this morning. The investigation began in February 2026, after the AFP-led Australian Centre to Counter Child Exploitation received a report from the US Department of Homeland Security Investigations about an online user involved in live online child sexual abuse. The AFP's Northern Command Joint Anti Child Exploitation Team allegedly linked the man to the account. A search warrant was executed at a Caloundra home on 1 April 2026 and electronic devices were seized. Forensic examination of the devices continues.

Three counts were laid. One count of using a carriage service for child abuse material, contrary to the former section 474.19(1) of the Criminal Code (Cth), carrying a maximum of 15 years. One count of sexual activity with a child outside Australia, contrary to section 272.9(2), carrying 20 years. One count of sexual intercourse with a child outside Australia, contrary to section 272.8(2), also carrying 20 years as charged. The AFP says it is working with overseas partners to identify the child and the adult involved and to remove the child from harm.

The man has not been named in the AFP material and the matter is before the court. Everything below is about the legal framework, which applies to any person charged with online child abuse offences of this kind.

Can you be charged in Australia for a crime committed overseas?

Yes. For child sex offences, Australian law has reached beyond the border since the child sex tourism amendments of 1994. The current offences sit in Division 272 of the Criminal Code Act 1995 (Cth), inserted in 2010. They apply where, at the time of the conduct, the accused was an Australian citizen, a permanent resident, or a body corporate with the required Australian connection. The conduct itself can occur wholly outside Australia. The child need never set foot here.

The policy is blunt. A person cannot avoid Australian criminal law by offending against children in another country, whether by travelling there or by using the internet to reach them. The offences are investigated by the AFP and prosecuted by the Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions in a state or territory court exercising federal jurisdiction. The Attorney-General's consent is required before proceedings for a Division 272 offence go beyond charge.

What does Division 272 of the Criminal Code (Cth) cover?

Division 272 contains the offences of sexual intercourse with a child outside Australia (section 272.8) and sexual activity with a child outside Australia (section 272.9). Each section has two limbs. The first limb covers a person who engages in the conduct with the child directly. The second limb, subsection (2) in each case, covers a person who causes the child to engage in the conduct in the presence of that person.

The second limb is how the provisions reach live online abuse. The prosecution case in matters of this kind is that a person in Australia who pays for the abuse, directs what is done, and watches it happen in real time has caused the child to engage in sexual intercourse or sexual activity in his presence, even though the presence is by video link and the child is in another country. The charges announced today follow that model: the AFP alleges payment, participation, and instructions given to an adult who was physically with the child in the Philippines.

Division 272 also contains aggravated offences, an offence of persistent sexual abuse of a child outside Australia, grooming and procuring offences, and preparatory offences. The division is supported by Division 273, which covers child abuse material offences committed outside Australia.

What is using a carriage service for child abuse material?

A carriage service is any service for carrying communications by electromagnetic energy: the internet, a mobile network, a messaging platform, a video call. The Criminal Code (Cth) makes it an offence to use a carriage service to access, transmit, solicit, or make available child abuse material. The current provision is section 474.22. The maximum penalty is 15 years, and 2020 amendments raised the ceiling to 30 years for the aggravated form in section 474.22A committed after that date.

The charge announced today was laid under the former section 474.19. That matters for two reasons. First, a charge is laid under the provision in force at the time of the offending, so older conduct is charged under the older section and the older maximum. Second, the older provision used the term child pornography. The Commonwealth replaced that term with child abuse material in 2019 because the older label understated what the material records. Every image or video captures the abuse of a real child.

The leading NSW authority on sentencing for carriage service child abuse material offences is R v Porte [2015] NSWCCA 174. The Court of Criminal Appeal held that general deterrence is the primary sentencing consideration, because the market for the material drives the abuse that produces it. The same reasoning runs through the live streaming cases: the paying viewer is not a bystander. The payment causes the abuse.

What penalties apply?

The maxima charged in this matter are 15 years for the carriage service count and 20 years for each Division 272 count, reflecting the law at the time of the alleged offending. For conduct after the 2020 amendments, section 272.8 carries 25 years. Persistent sexual abuse of a child outside Australia carries 30 years. The 2020 Act also introduced mandatory minimum sentences for certain repeat Commonwealth child sex offenders.

Bail is harder than for most Commonwealth offences. Section 15AAA of the Crimes Act 1914 (Cth) creates a presumption against bail for Commonwealth child sex offences. The bail authority must refuse bail unless satisfied that circumstances exist to justify a grant. Sentencing follows section 16A of the Crimes Act 1914 (Cth), with the additional requirements for child sex offences in sections 16A(2AAA) and 20(1)(b), including the starting position that a sentence of actual imprisonment is to be imposed.

What is the ACCCE and how does the AFP investigate online child exploitation?

The Australian Centre to Counter Child Exploitation was established in 2018 as the AFP-led national hub for these investigations. It receives tens of thousands of reports each year, most of them referrals from the US National Center for Missing and Exploited Children and from foreign law enforcement such as Homeland Security Investigations. Reports are triaged and referred to Joint Anti Child Exploitation Teams in each state, which pair AFP investigators with state police.

A typical investigation follows the pattern seen in today's matter. A foreign referral identifies an online account. Investigators work to attribute the account to a person, usually through subscriber records, payment records, and IP data. A search warrant is executed and devices are seized. The forensic examination of the devices then becomes the spine of the prosecution case. The interval between warrant and charge, three months here, is normal, and further charges after forensic examination are common.

What we do for clients facing a Commonwealth online child abuse charge.

The first point is the interview. A person whose home has been searched will usually be invited to take part in a recorded interview. Nothing said in that room can be unsaid. Advice must come before the interview, not after. Our note on the recorded police interview explains the caution and the choices.

The second is the evidence. Attribution is the contested ground in most carriage service cases: who was using the account, the device, the payment method. Shared households, shared devices, and remote access all matter. The payment records and the platform data are tested, not accepted. Where the Crown relies on the second limb of section 272.8 or 272.9, the words causes and in the presence of carry the case, and both have to be proved to the criminal standard.

The third is bail and timing. Section 15AAA sets a high bar, and preparation for a bail application in a Commonwealth child sex matter begins on day one. Our guide to the first thirty days after charge sets out the sequence. Where a search warrant has been executed and no charge has yet been laid, the position is different again, and early advice can shape everything that follows.

Frequently asked.

Who prosecutes Commonwealth child sex offences?

The Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions. The AFP investigates, usually through the ACCCE and the Joint Anti Child Exploitation Teams, and refers the brief to the CDPP. The matter is heard in a state or territory court exercising federal jurisdiction.

Is there a presumption against bail for Commonwealth child sex offences?

Yes. Section 15AAA of the Crimes Act 1914 (Cth) requires the bail authority to refuse bail for a Commonwealth child sex offence unless satisfied that circumstances exist to justify a grant. The section applies on top of the state or territory bail law.

Which maximum penalty applies if the law has changed since the offence?

The maximum in force at the time of the offending. That is why a person can be charged in 2026 under the former section 474.19, which carried 15 years, rather than the current section 474.22. Penalties for Divisions 272 and 474 were increased in 2020 for offending after that date.

Why do some charges still say child pornography instead of child abuse material?

Commonwealth legislation replaced the term child pornography with child abuse material in 2019. A charge for older conduct is laid under the provision, and the terminology, in force at the time of the offence.

Does watching a live stream count as sexual activity with a child outside Australia?

The prosecution case in live online abuse matters is that a person in Australia who pays for, directs and watches abuse in real time engages in sexual activity in the presence of the child within Division 272, even though the child is overseas. Each case turns on its facts and the charge remains an allegation until proved.

To speak to a criminal defence lawyer, call Aaron Kernaghan on 0421 717 019.

This article is written by Aaron Kernaghan, criminal defence lawyer at Good Legal Lawyers, as at 2 July 2026. It is commentary and reflects the personal opinion of the author only. It is not legal advice, it is not a substitute for advice on your own matter, and it does not purport to be accurate or complete. Any matter referred to may be before the court and any person charged is presumed innocent. For advice on a specific matter, contact Aaron Kernaghan on 0421 717 019 or contact the firm.

More criminal-law commentary by Aaron Kernaghan.

← Back to all news