The definition of 'child pornography' in s 62 of the Criminal Law Consolidation Act 1935 (SA) requires an objective test for both limbs: whether material is 'intended or apparently intended to excite or gratify sexual interest' is determined by reference to the content and attributes of the material, not the subjective intention of the producer or possessor. R v Murdock's subjective construction is disapproved. The subjective intention of the accused is relevant only to the mental element of 'knowing of its pornographic nature' under s 63A, not to the definition of child pornography itself. Stanley J's dissent raises an alternative construction creating two paths to proof (actual intention and apparent intention) which may be relevant in future cases.
The full text is available to signed-in members.