Facing charges of Bomb Hoax in Queensland?
When your job, reputation, and future are at risk, urgent advice from our leading Brisbane criminal lawyers is critical.
Early steps affect the outcome.
or
Choosing the best criminal defence lawyer in Queensland
A charge of Bomb Hoax (or Bomb Threats) under Section 321A of Criminal Code 1899 (Qld) is a serious offence in Queensland and can often result in significant penalties, including imprisonment.
The seriousness of this offence stems from the potential to cause widespread panic, significant disruption to public services, and unnecessary emergency responses.
If you are charged, seeking legal advice early from an experienced bomb hoax lawyer can make a difference to the outcome. Call us, or fill in our Quick Enquiry form to receive a link to our free guide, 16 Things You Need to Do Now if Charged with a Criminal Offence.
Keypoints about Bomb Hoaxes
Relevant law – Criminal Code 1899 (Qld), s 321A
Offence type – making a bomb threat or placing a fake explosive device
Maximum penalty - 7 years imprisonment for placing or sending a fake bomb, or 5 years imprisonment for making a false bomb threat
Court – all charges of bomb hoaxes will start in the Magistrates Court, but will then be committed and finalised in the District Court of Queensland
What is the charge of bomb hoax in Queensland?
Under section 321A of theCriminal Code 1899 (Qld), it is a criminal offence to deliberately cause others to believe an explosive or dangerous substance is present when it is not. There are two different offences under this section.
Placing or sending a fake bomb
A person commits an offence if they:
place an article or substance somewhere, or
send an article or substance in any way
with the intention of making someone believe it could explode, ignite, or release a dangerous substance.
The maximum penalty is 7 years imprisonment.
Importantly, the object does not actually need to be dangerous. The offence focuses on the intention to create that belief.
Making a false bomb threat
It is also an offence to:
make a statement or convey information
knowing it is false
intending another person to believe that a bomb or dangerous substance is present in a place in Qld.
The maximum penalty for this offence is 5 years imprisonment.
This can include threats made:
by phone
through social media or email
verbally to police or the public.
What must the prosecution prove?
To convict you of a bomb hoax offence, the prosecution must prove each element beyond reasonable doubt.
For placing or sending a fake bomb
Police must prove:
you placed or sent the article or substance
you intended another person to believe it could explode or release a dangerous substance.
For making a false bomb threat
Police must prove:
you made a statement or conveyed information
the information was false
you knew or believed it was false
you intended another person to believe a bomb or dangerous substance was present in Qld.
The prosecution does not need to prove a specific person was targeted. It is enough that you intended someone to believe the threat.
What is the penalty for a bomb hoax in Qld?
Bomb hoaxes are treated seriously because they can cause panic and require emergency responses from police, ambulance, and bomb squads. The maximum penalties are:
7 years imprisonment – placing or sending a fake bomb
5 years imprisonment – making a false bomb threat
Actual sentences depend on factors such as:
whether the threat caused evacuations or emergency responses
whether it targeted a school, airport, or public building
your criminal history
whether you pleaded guilty early
your personal circumstances.
Courts may impose penalties including:
imprisonment
suspended sentences
probation
community service
What happens in court for bomb hoax charges?
Most bomb hoax charges begin in the Magistrates Court. Because the offence carries significant penalties, it is an indictable offence and is usually finalised in the District Court of Queensland.
The process typically includes:
first court appearance and bail consideration
disclosure of the police brief of evidence
committal proceedings in the Magistrates Court
trial or sentence in the District Court.
Our Brisbane criminal defence lawyers regularly appear in both courts and prepare detailed defence strategies early in the case.
How to defend a charge of bomb hoax
The available defence depends on the evidence. Common issues that arise include:
Identity
Police must prove you were the person who made the threat or placed the object. In some cases, threats are made through:
anonymous messages
shared devices
hacked accounts.
If police cannot prove identity, the charge may fail.
Lack of intent
A key element of the offence is intent to make others believe a bomb existed. If there was no intention to cause that belief, the prosecution may not be able to prove the offence.
Mistake of fact
If a statement was made without knowing it was false, a defence may arise depending on the circumstances.
FAQ - Keypoints bomb hoax charges
-
What is Bomb Hoaxes?
A person commits the offence of Bomb Hoax, if they:
Place or send an article or substance with the intent to make someone believe it could explode, ignite, or release a dangerous substance. The maximum penalty is 7 years imprisonment.
Make a false statement or provide false information to induce belief that an explosive, dangerous, or noxious substance is present in Queensland. The maximum penalty is 5 years imprisonment.
The offence applies regardless of whether the person targeted a specific person with their actions or not.
-
Courts take this offence seriously, and penalties are determined based on factors such as:
Your personal circumstances
Any prior criminal history
Any mental issues of the defendant
Nature or severity of the facts
Impact on the victim or community
Penalties vary. Even though the maximum penalty is imprisonment, there may be grounds to argue a lesser penalty, such as probation.
-
Our Brisbane criminal lawyers will analyse the specific facts of your case to determine the most effective strategic approach. We thoroughly examine the evidence and circumstances to build the strongest possible defence.
Defences may include:
Whether the prosecutor can prove intention
Whether there is sufficient evidence to identify the defendant as the person having placed or sent the article or substance, or made the statement
In some cases, it may also be appropriate to negotiate with the prosecution to have the charge reduced or discontinued.
-
If you are charged with this criminal offence, it is essential to:
Avoid making any further statements about the incident
Ensure you are aware of your next court date and location so that you do not miss it
Seek legal advice immediately to understand your rights and obligations
The early stages are critical in shaping the outcome of your case.
Our Brisbane criminal lawyers appear in all courts throughout Queensland. We will thoroughly review the evidence and develop the strongest strategy for achieving your best outcome.
Bomb Hoax Cases in Queensland
R v Waugh [1999] QCA 45 - The offender made two telephone calls to the Townsville office of the Queensland Premier claiming that a bomb would explode and stating he wanted to “blow up all politicians.” The threats were taken seriously and the ten-storey building was evacuated, causing disruption to hundreds of people and requiring police and emergency services to respond.
The Court emphasised that general deterrence is a paramount consideration in sentencing bomb hoax offences because of the potential to cause widespread alarm and disruption, even where no device exists.
Sentence of six months imprisonment with three years probation and psychiatric treatment upheld. Leave to appeal refused.
R v Tobin [2008] QCA 54 - The offender telephoned police twice claiming there was a bomb at a surf lifesaving club. The calls were made while intoxicated following a dispute with staff at the club. The threats were quickly identified as lacking credibility and were not taken seriously, and no evacuation occurred.
Although bomb hoax offences generally require deterrent sentences, the Court recognised that where the threat causes little alarm and strong mitigating factors exist, imprisonment may not be necessary.
Appeal allowed. Probation for six months imposed with anger management and alcohol counselling. No conviction recorded.
R v EQ [2021] QCA 257 - The offender attended Brisbane International Airport while subject to a domestic violence order and produced objects he claimed were bombs. He threatened security officers and police and said he would detonate the device. The airport terminal was evacuated, flights were delayed and the incident caused significant disruption and cost.
Bomb hoaxes in sensitive public infrastructure such as airports involve serious risk to public safety and major operational disruption, warranting substantial custodial sentences.
Sentence adjusted on appeal. Five years imprisonment imposed for the aviation offence with a non-parole period of 2½ years.
R v Gompelman [2002] QCA 191 - The offender assisted another person to place a fake explosive device in the complainant’s vehicle after a violent assault arising from a long-running family conflict. The device appeared real and caused police to cordon off the area and deploy emergency services before it was identified as a hoax.
Bomb hoaxes which create a realistic risk of public alarm and emergency response are treated seriously, even where the device is not capable of exploding.
Effective sentence of 2½ years imprisonment suspended after 12 months upheld on appeal.
R v Baker [2011] QCA 33 - The offender engaged in a course of harassment against the complainant following a dispute over a deceased partner’s property. The conduct included stalking behaviour, damaging property and leaving an object resembling a bomb at the complainant’s house to frighten her. The incident caused police to close the street and investigate the suspected device.
The Court emphasised that bomb hoax conduct used to intimidate or harass a victim warrants imprisonment because of the fear and disruption caused.
Sentence including 18 months imprisonment for the bomb hoax offence (with other concurrent sentences) upheld. Appeal against sentence refused.
Re Cornish [2007] QMHC 13 - The defendant telephoned Ipswich Hospital stating that two bombs had been planted in the hospital. The call caused emergency response measures including searches and diversion of ambulances. The offending occurred while the defendant was under severe emotional distress relating to her son’s medical treatment.
Where an offender is deprived of the capacity to know they ought not do the act because of mental infirmity, criminal responsibility may not arise.
The Mental Health Court found the defendant was of unsound mind at the time of the offence. No forensic order was made.
Re Drake [2012] QMHC 29 - The defendant made nine bomb hoax calls to churches and courthouses over several months. Psychiatric evidence showed he suffered from chronic schizophrenia and intellectual impairment.
Where serious mental illness substantially affects a person’s capacity to appreciate the wrongness of their actions, criminal responsibility may be displaced and treatment orders may be appropriate.
The Mental Health Court found the defendant was of unsound mind and made a forensic order with supervised treatment conditions.
Facing serious criminal charges?
If you or someone you know needs urgent legal advice, contact us now.
Call us on (07) 3012 6531 or fill in our Quick Enquiry form for a confidential discussion with our Brisbane criminal lawyers.