Online Harassment & Carriage Service Offences — Fixed Fee
$3,300 — Fixed Fee
Fixed fees: Carriage service offence — single charge, Magistrates Court — $3,300 fixed Complex matter or multiple charges — Magistrates Court — $4,800 fixed Contested hearing — $5,500 District Court — from $12,000 Covers : first consultation, full review of the prosecution material, advice on the charge and your options, and representation at court. No hidden fees. One invoice. All fees +10% GST.
What Is Included
Review of the prosecution brief, including all communications evidence — text messages, emails, voicemails, social media records, call logs, and any device forensics the prosecution relies on Advice on the charge under Commonwealth law, the elements the prosecution must prove, and the realistic penalty range for the conduct alleged Assessment of the evidence against each element of the offence — including whether the prosecution can prove who sent the communications and whether the content meets the legal threshold Jurisdiction advice — whether the matter stays in the Magistrates Court or could proceed to the District Court, and what that means for penalty exposure Court representation at the Cairns Magistrates Court or, where applicable, the District Court — whether the matter resolves at the first appearance, proceeds to a contested hearing, or requires adjournment for further preparation Pre-charge advice if you are under investigation but not yet charged — what to do and what not to say before a charging decision is made Collateral consequence planning — identifying professional registration, employment disclosure, and visa obligations before any hearing so there are no surprises afterward
What These Charges Cover
Charges for online harassment, threats, and offensive communications are prosecuted under the Commonwealth Criminal Code Act 1995 (Cth), not under Queensland law. The conduct involves a "carriage service" — a telephone network, internet service, or any telecommunications system — and the Commonwealth has legislative power over telecommunications. The charges are heard in the Queensland Magistrates Court — the same building and the same magistrate. But the law being applied is Commonwealth law, and the sentencing framework differs from Queensland offences. That distinction matters for two reasons. First, these charges are technically indictable offences under Commonwealth law, even where the conduct might seem relatively minor. Second, the sentencing options and penalty caps are set by Commonwealth legislation, not the Queensland sentencing framework. The Main Charges and Penalties s 474.17 — Using a carriage service to menace, harass or cause offence. Maximum 5 years imprisonment. This is the most commonly charged offence in this area. It covers text messages, emails, phone calls, voicemails, social media posts, and any other communication sent via a telecommunications service. s 474.15(1) — Using a carriage service to make a threat to kill. Maximum 10 years imprisonment. s 474.15(2) — Using a carriage service to threaten serious harm. Maximum 7 years imprisonment. s 474.17A — Using a carriage service for non-consensual sharing of intimate images. Maximum 6 years imprisonment. Covers both real and AI-generated material. s 474.17C — Using a carriage service to make available personal data (doxxing). Maximum 6 years imprisonment. All of these are indictable offences under s 4G of the Crimes Act 1914 (Cth) because their maximum penalties exceed 12 months imprisonment. Magistrates Court or District Court An indictable Commonwealth offence carrying a maximum of 10 years or less can be dealt with summarily in the Magistrates Court — but only with the consent of both the prosecution and the defendant. If either party withholds consent, the matter proceeds on indictment in the District Court with the full maximum penalty available. Where the matter is dealt with in the Magistrates Court, the available penalty is capped. For s 474.17 (maximum 5 years): the Magistrates Court can impose up to 12 months imprisonment . For s 474.15 (maximum 7–10 years): the Magistrates Court can impose up to 2 years imprisonment . These caps are substantially lower than the full maximums available on indictment in the District Court. In practice, the majority of s 474.17 matters are dealt with in the Magistrates Court. However, the prosecution retains discretion on consent and does not automatically agree to summary jurisdiction. Where the conduct alleged is sustained, involves multiple complainants, or has caused serious harm, the prosecution may insist on proceeding on indictment in the District Court. The defendant can also elect to withhold consent — for example, to access a jury trial. Sacha will advise on the jurisdiction question and what it means for penalty exposure at the first consultation.
What the Prosecution Must Prove
Section 474.17 has two elements, and the fault requirements apply differently to each under Chapter 2 of the Criminal Code Act 1995 (Cth): Element (a) — using the carriage service: the prosecution must prove you intended to use the carriage service — that is, you meant to send the message, make the call, or post the content. Element (b) — in a way that reasonable persons would regard as menacing, harassing or offensive: the prosecution must prove you were aware of a substantial risk that reasonable persons would regard the communication as menacing, harassing, or offensive, and that it was unjustifiable to take that risk. The prosecution does not need to prove you intended to menace, harass, or offend. It is enough that you were reckless — aware of the risk and chose to proceed anyway. The test is objective: what would reasonable persons think, in all the circumstances. The High Court considered the meaning of "offensive" in Monis v The Queen (2013) 249 CLR 92. A communication must be seriously offensive, not merely hurtful or annoying. The Queensland District Court in Starkey v CDPP [2013] QDC 124 confirmed that "menacing" includes threats that go beyond physical violence — a threat of any kind may be sufficient. These elements matter because they determine what the prosecution has to establish. Where the evidence falls short on either element — where there is a genuine question about who sent the communications, or where the content does not objectively reach the required threshold — the charge can be challenged.
What Changes the Outcome
Whether the matter stays in the Magistrates Court. A s 474.17 charge dealt with summarily carries a maximum of 12 months. The same charge on indictment in the District Court carries 5 years. Jurisdiction determines the entire penalty range. The nature and volume of communications. A single angry text message is treated very differently from a sustained campaign of harassment across multiple platforms over weeks or months. The pattern and persistence of the alleged conduct is the single most important sentencing factor. Whether the communications were menacing, harassing, or offensive. These are three separate categories under s 474.17, and the distinction matters for sentencing. A threat of physical violence (menacing) is treated more seriously than offensive language (offensive). The prosecution must identify which category it relies on. The relationship between the parties. Matters involving former partners, former clients, or workplace disputes carry different dynamics and sentencing considerations than matters involving strangers or public figures. Whether there is a defence. Common defences include: you did not send the communications (hacked accounts, spoofed numbers), the communications do not reach the threshold of "menacing, harassing or offensive" when viewed objectively, or the communications were part of legitimate conduct (political comment, consumer complaint, whistleblowing). Professional and employment consequences. Many people charged under s 474.17 hold professional registrations — health practitioners, lawyers, teachers, financial services professionals. A conviction triggers mandatory disclosure obligations and can result in licence suspension or cancellation. Those consequences need to be addressed in submissions.
What Sacha Focuses On
The communications evidence is reviewed first. Prosecution briefs in s 474.17 matters typically contain extracted message logs, call records, and social media captures. What matters is what was actually said, in what context, and whether the prosecution's characterisation of the communications as menacing, harassing, or offensive is supported by the content and the surrounding circumstances. Context can change everything — a message that looks threatening in isolation may read differently when the full exchange is shown. The jurisdiction question is addressed early. Whether the matter can and should be dealt with in the Magistrates Court affects every decision that follows — the approach, the sentencing range, and the preparation required. Sacha will advise on whether consent to summary disposition should be given and what the alternatives are. For matters that resolve by plea, submissions are built around the nature and context of the communications, your personal circumstances, and any collateral consequences — particularly professional registration, employment, and visa implications. Where you hold a professional registration with a body such as AHPRA, the Medical Board, the Law Society, or any other licensing authority, the consequences of a conviction under s 474.17 extend well beyond the sentence imposed by the court. Those consequences are identified before the hearing and addressed in the submissions. For contested matters, the two elements of the offence are tested against the evidence. The recklessness requirement, the objective "reasonable persons" test, and the threshold for what constitutes "menacing, harassing or offensive" conduct all present opportunities for defence where the evidence is equivocal or the communications are capable of an innocent interpretation.
FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS
What counts as a "carriage service"? A carriage service is any service for carrying communications by means of guided or unguided electromagnetic energy — as defined in the Telecommunications Act 1997 (Cth). In practice, this covers phone calls, SMS, email, social media platforms (Facebook, Instagram, X, TikTok, Snapchat), messaging apps (WhatsApp, Telegram, Signal), voicemail, and any other form of electronic communication. If the communication was sent over the internet or a phone network, it was sent via a carriage service. Someone hacked my account and sent the messages — is that a defence? If the prosecution cannot prove that you were the person who used the carriage service, the charge fails on element (a). However, raising this defence requires more than assertion — evidence of the hack, such as forensic analysis of the account or device, login records from unfamiliar locations, or evidence of compromise, will be needed to support the claim. Sacha will advise on what evidence would be required and whether the defence is viable on the material available. Can I go to jail for sending offensive messages? Yes. The maximum penalty for s 474.17 is 5 years imprisonment on indictment and 12 months if dealt with summarily. Whether imprisonment is actually imposed depends on the nature and volume of the communications, whether there is a pattern of conduct, and your personal circumstances. For a first offence involving a small number of communications and no threats of violence, imprisonment is unlikely. For sustained harassment campaigns, it is a real possibility. I posted something offensive on social media — can I be charged? Yes. Section 474.17 covers communications made via any carriage service, including social media posts. However, the post must reach the threshold of "menacing, harassing or offensive" as judged by reasonable persons in all the circumstances. Not every rude, inflammatory, or provocative post meets that threshold. The High Court in Monis v The Queen (2013) 249 CLR 92 confirmed that "offensive" requires serious offensiveness, not merely content that people find distasteful. Will this charge go to the District Court? It can. Section 474.17 is technically an indictable offence. It is dealt with in the Magistrates Court only if both the prosecution and the defendant consent to summary disposition under s 4J(1) of the Crimes Act 1914 (Cth). If either party withholds consent, the matter proceeds on indictment in the District Court with the full 5-year maximum. In practice, most s 474.17 charges are dealt with summarily — but the District Court pathway exists, and it affects the penalty exposure significantly. I hold a professional registration — what happens if I'm convicted? Most regulated professions — health (AHPRA), law, education, financial services, government roles — require disclosure of criminal charges or convictions. A conviction under s 474.17 can trigger mandatory reporting obligations, investigation by the relevant board, and in some cases suspension or cancellation of registration. These consequences often matter more than the sentence itself. Sacha addresses professional registration exposure in every matter where it is relevant.