Section 22(3) of the Cybercrime Code Act 2016 is one of only three provisions in the Act carrying life imprisonment.
Section 22(3)
Where the offence in subsection (1) results in death, the offender is guilty of a crime.
Penalty:
(a) in the case of a child offender, subject to the Juvenile Justice Act 2014 and section 19 of the Criminal Code Act (Chapter 262) — (i) imprisonment for life; and (ii) prohibition from accessing and using ICTs or electronic systems or devices for the term of imprisonment imposed;
(b) in the case of an adult offender, subject to section 19 of the Criminal Code — (i) imprisonment for life; and (ii) the same ICT prohibition.
The word “and”
In section 22(1) and section 22(2), the penalty is expressed as detention or imprisonment “or” an ICT prohibition “or both”.
In subsection (3) the two limbs are joined by “and”: imprisonment for life and prohibition from accessing and using ICTs for the term of imprisonment imposed.
Note also that the prohibition here runs for the term of imprisonment imposed — without the additional two years that subsections (1) and (2) add.
Life imprisonment for a child
Section 22(3)(a) provides for imprisonment for life in the case of a child offender — a person under 18.
Two provisions moderate it:
The Juvenile Justice Act 2014, applied both by paragraph (a) itself and by section 5(3), which provides that where any offence in the Act is committed by a child between 10 and 18, that Act applies. It brings its own procedures, diversion options and dispositions.
Section 19 of the Criminal Code, the general sentencing discretion, which allows a court to impose less than the maximum and to make other orders in lieu. The words “subject to section 19” confirm that life imprisonment is a maximum, not a mandatory sentence.
And section 5(1) and (2) apply: a child under 10 is not criminally responsible at all, and a child between 10 and 14 is not responsible unless it is proved they had capacity to know that they ought not to do the act.
Note that section 23(3) makes identical provision where cyber harassment results in death.
“Results in death”
The subsection requires the section 22(1) offence to have resulted in death. Causation must be established.
In the circumstances this provision plainly contemplates — a child taking their own life after sustained online bullying — that is a demanding question of fact, requiring evidence about the bullying, its intensity and duration, its effect on the child, and what else was operating.
No intention to cause death is required. The mental element is carried over from subsection (1): acting intentionally or recklessly for one of the seven purposes — bullying, intimidating, threatening, demeaning, ridiculing, stalking, or causing emotional distress.
So a person who joins a bullying campaign, recklessly as to causing distress, faces life imprisonment if the campaign results in the child’s death.
The three life-sentence provisions
| Provision | Trigger | Applies to a child offender? |
|---|---|---|
| s 19(2) | Grooming a child under 16 | Not expressly — but s 5(3) applies the Juvenile Justice Act |
| s 22(3) | Cyber bullying resulting in death | Yes, expressly |
| s 23(3) | Cyber harassment resulting in death | Yes, expressly |
The Act reserves its heaviest penalty for two things: the sexual exploitation of young children, and online abuse that ends in a death.
Both are offences where the harm is irreversible, and both are offences the Act treats as warranting the maximum the criminal law can impose — subject in every case to the court’s discretion under section 19 of the Criminal Code.
Practical points
- For young people. Joining a pile-on is not a minor matter. Section 22(1) catches anyone who initiates, facilitates or participates in the communication — and if it results in death, subsection (3) applies to a child offender by name.
- For parents and schools. The escalation from seven years to twenty-five to life turns entirely on consequences, which nobody taking part can control. Intervening early is what prevents an ordinary schoolyard dispute becoming a case under this subsection.
- For investigators. Causation will be the central issue, and the evidence supporting it — the messages, the timeline, the child’s response — is electronic. The Part IV powers matter: preservation notices under section 36, production orders under section 35, and restraining orders under section 38 to stop material being deleted.
- Not triable summarily. Unlike sections 22(1) and (2), section 22(3) is not in Schedule 2. See summary trial.
See also protecting children online.
Sources
- Cybercrime Code Act 2016 — ss 2, 5, 19, 22, 23, 35, 36, 38, 48; Schedule 2
- Juvenile Justice Act 2014; Criminal Code Act (Chapter 262) — s 19
Before relying on anything here, read the current text of the Cybercrime Code Act 2016 and check for later amendments. If a decision matters to you, get advice — start with the Office of the Public Solicitor, or find a firm in the law firms directory.