Facing Indecent Treatment of a Child charges in Qld?

Indecent treatment of a child is an offence under section 210 of the Criminal Code Act 1899 (Qld).

It covers situations where a person unlawfully deals with a child under 16 in a way that is indecent.

“Deals with” is defined broadly. It can include touching, treating, or acting towards a child in a manner that the community would regard as indecent.

Generally no. Under section 229 of the Criminal Code, unless otherwise stated, it is immaterial that you did not know that the child was under that age.

However, in limited circumstances, a defence of mistake of fact under section 24 of the Criminal Code may still arise.

This would usually require evidence that you honestly and reasonably believed the complainant was of legal age, based on the circumstances at the time.

Whether this defence is available depends on the evidence.

Because this area is highly technical and fact-specific, it is important to get legal advice early to understand whether a mistake of fact defence could apply in your situation.

The penalty depends on the circumstances of the case.

The maximum penalty is 14 years imprisonment, but this increases to 20 years imprisonment if certain aggravating factors are present. These include:

• if the child is under 12 years of age

• if the child is your lineal descendant (for example, your biological child or grandchild)

• if you were the child’s guardian or had the child in your care at the time

• if the child had an impairment of the mind

“Indecent” is given its ordinary meaning.

It is conduct that offends against current community standards of decency.

The Court may look at factors like the ages of the parties, the relationship between them, what was said or done, and whether the conduct had a sexual purpose or connotation.

No. Consent is not relevant. A child under 16 cannot legally consent to indecent dealing, so it is no defence that the child appeared to agree.

Section 210(5) sets out general defences, which may include circumstances where the conduct was authorised, justified, or excused by law.

Section 210(5A) provides a defence to liability in relation to certain circumstances of aggravation (for example, where the allegation involves a position of care or guardianship).

Importantly, the burden of proof for these defences rests with the defendant, not the prosecution. This means you would need to establish the defence on the balance of probabilities, rather than the prosecution having to disprove it.

In addition, a mistake of fact defence under section 24 of the Criminal Code may apply. For example, if there is credible evidence you honestly and reasonably believed the complainant was of or above the legal age.

In addition to the limited statutory defences under the Criminal Code, a common defence is to challenge the credibility and reliability of the witnesses. This may involve:

• Arguing that the alleged acts did not occur at all

• Highlighting inconsistencies in the complainant’s evidence or prior statements

• Showing that there are gaps or weaknesses in the prosecution case

• Using expert evidence, such as medical or psychological reports, where appropriate

In many cases, these arguments focus on whether the prosecution can prove the charge beyond reasonable doubt.

If the evidence is inconsistent, unreliable, or not supported by other material, the Court may find the charge is not proven.