School Employee Charged with Possessing Child Abuse and Animal Abuse Material

Detectives from the New South Wales Police Sex Crimes Squad have charged a man employed at a school with a string of alleged child abuse material and animal abuse material offences, as part of the ongoing Strike Force Trawler investigation.

Background to the investigation

Strike Force Trawler is a continuing operation run by State Crime Command’s Sex Crimes Squad Child Exploitation Internet Unit (CEIU), which is tasked with investigating the sexual abuse and exploitation of children carried out through the internet and associated telecommunications devices.

In July 2026, strike force detectives received a report concerning the detection of child abuse material linked to an account holder in the state’s north-west.

The arrest and charges

At around 11am on Tuesday 21 July 2026, detectives attended the school and arrested 24-year-old man who was then taken to Bourke Police Station and charged with:

• Two counts of possessing child abuse material,
• Two counts of possessing animal sexual abuse material, and
• Possessing animal crush material.

He was refused bail at the police station and brought before Bourke Local Court on Wednesday, 22 July 2026, where he was again refused bail.

He is scheduled to appear before the court in September 2026.

The offence of possessing child abuse material

Possessing child abuse material is an offence under section 91H of the Crimes Act 1900 (NSW).

To establish the offence, the prosecution must prove beyond reasonable doubt that a person possessed child abuse material.

Child abuse material is defined as that which depicts or describes, in a way that reasonable persons would regard as being, in all the circumstances, offensive:

• a person who is, appears to be or is implied to be, a child as a victim of torture, cruelty or physical abuse, 
• a person who is, appears to be or is implied to be, a child engaged in or apparently engaged in a sexual pose or sexual activity (whether or not in the presence of other persons), or
• a person who is, appears to be or is implied to be, a child in the presence of another person who is engaged or apparently engaged in a sexual pose or sexual activity, or
• the private parts of a person who is, appears to be or is implied to be, a child.

A child is a person under the age of 18 years.

The matters to be taken into account in deciding whether reasonable persons would regard particular material as being, in all the circumstances, offensive, include:

• the standards of morality, decency and propriety generally accepted by reasonable adults, and
• the literary, artistic or educational merit (if any) of the material, and
• the journalistic merit (if any) of the material, being the merit of the material as a record or report of a matter of public interest, and
• the general character of the material (including whether it is of a medical, legal or scientific character).

The maximum penalty for the offence is 10 years in prison.

Legal defences

In addition to having to prove the offence beyond reasonable doubt, the prosecution must also disprove to the same high standard any general legal defence raised by the evidence. Such defences include self-defence, duress, necessity, automatism and mental illness.

The most frequently used general legal defences in these types of cases are duress and mental illness. 

Duress is where a person or their loved-one has been threatened, the threat is serious enough to justify the otherwise criminal conduct, is playing on the person’s mind at the time of the conduct and is continuing.

A person is not guilty due to mental illness where at the time of their conduct, he or she had a mental health impairment or a cognitive impairment, or both, that had the effect that the person:

• Did not know the nature and quality of the act, or
• Did not know that the act was wrong (that is, the person could not reason with a moderate degree of sense and composure about whether the act, as perceived by reasonable people, was wrong).

There are also several discrete legal defences and an exception to the offence.

The defences are:

• The person did not know, and could not reasonably be expected to have known, that he or she possessed child abuse material,
• The material came into the person’s possession unsolicited and the defendant, as soon as he or she became aware of its nature, took reasonable steps to get rid of it.
• The person’s conduct  was of public benefit and did not extend beyond that benefit,
• The person a law enforcement officer acting in the course of his or her duties and the conduct was reasonable in the circumstances for the purpose of performing that duty.
• The material concerned was classified under the Classification (Publications, Films and Computer Games) Act 1995 of the Commonwealth, other than as refused classification (RC), or
• The conduct was necessary for or of assistance in conducting scientific, medical or educational research that has been approved by the Attorney General in writing for the purposes of this section and did not contravene any conditions of that approval.

The exception is:

• The possession of the material occurred when the person was a child, and
• a reasonable person would consider the possession of the material as acceptable having regard to its nature and content, the circumstances in which the material was produced and possessed, the age, intellectual capacity, vulnerability or other relevant circumstances of the person and the child depicted in the material and any relationship between the person and the depicted child.

The offence of possessing animal abuse or animal crush material

Offences relating to animal sexual abuse and animal crush material are contained in section 547E of the Crimes Act 1900 (NSW), a provision introduced in 2021 to close a gap in the law that previously allowed those who possessed such material without direct involvement in its production to escape criminal liability.

To establish the offence, the prosecution must prove beyond reasonable doubt that a person possessed animal sexual abuse or animal crush material.

Such material is defined by the section as that which:

• depicts or describes animal sexual abuse or an animal being crushed, burned, drowned, suffocated, impaled or otherwise killed or subjected to serious injury, and
• is material that a reasonable person would regard in all the circumstances as being intended or apparently intended to excite or gratify a sexual interest, or excite or gratify a sadistic or other perverted interest in violence or cruelty.

The maximum penalty for the offence is three years in prison.

Legal defences 

Again, in addition to having to prove the offence beyond reasonable doubt, the prosecution must also disprove to the same high standard any general legal defence raised by the evidence.

Once again, the most frequently used general legal defence in these types of cases are duress and mental illness.

Section 547E also contains several discrete legal defences, which are that:

• the person did not know, and could not reasonably be expected to have known, that the material possessed was animal sexual abuse or animal crush material, or
• the person was, at the time of the offence, a law enforcement officer acting in the course of the defendant’s duties and the conduct of the defendant was reasonable in the circumstances for the purpose of performing the duty,
• the material concerned was classified, whether before or after the commission of the alleged offence, under the Classification (Publications, Films and Computer Games) Act 1995 of the Commonwealth, other than as refused classification (RC),
• the conduct was necessary for or of assistance in conducting scientific, medical or educational research approved, authorised or otherwise permitted under a law of the State or of another State, a Territory or the Commonwealth, or
• the material came into the person’s possession unsolicited and he or she took reasonable steps to get rid of it upon becoming aware of its nature, 

The presumption of innocence

It’s important to bear in mind that these are, at this stage, merely allegations. The man has not yet had the opportunity to test the prosecution case, and under Australian law he is presumed innocent unless and until his guilt is proven beyond reasonable doubt in a court of law.