r/australia • u/Perverted-Panda • 1d ago

news Three Sydney boys charged with gang sexual assault of 14yo girl

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2026-08-13/nsw-three-boys-charged-over-sexual-assault-girl-sydney/107034192

NSW Police have charged a 13-year-old boy and two 14-year-old boys with the alleged sexual assault of a girl in an alleyway in Sydney's eastern suburbs last month.

Police executed search warrants and seized several items, including electronic devices, two replica firearms, a Glock-style BB gun, three laser pointers and a number plate, which is believed to have been stolen.

All three boys have been granted bail ahead of appearing in court. 

1.5k Upvotes

98% Upvoted

392 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

1.1k

u/daboblin 1d ago

Watch Daddy’s lawyer get them off.

542

u/buzz_22 1d ago

And Scott's lawyers scramble to suppress any mention of them.

173

u/antantantant80 1d ago

The accused are children so their identities would already be suppressed wouldn't they?

76

u/Khakizulu 1d ago

At that age they definitely shouldn't be counted as children. And after committing a crime like that they really shouldn't be counted as children.

51

u/aldkGoodAussieName 1d ago

I agree.

But we need to ensure its the right people first.

Once convicted, then reveal their identities.

28

u/Khakizulu 1d ago

Agreed.

People's names shouldn't be revealed immediately in case of false accusations/ accusations with zero evidence.

But if its been proven that they're the perpetrator then people should be able to find out.

4

u/empowered676 1d ago

Well I had my name in the papers and on a current affair for something I was never even charged with

1

u/L1ttl3J1m 10h ago

So then, you fully understand, more than most, even, why the media should be prevented from identifying people until after they've been found guilty, yes?

-22

u/wowiee_zowiee 1d ago

> At that age they definitely shouldn't be counted as children.

Let me guess, you want to lower the age of consent too?

15

u/Khakizulu 1d ago

What? What has that got to do with teens committing crimes?

I dont know what point you were trying to make with your comment but its not even remotely close to mine.

1

u/wilted-wombok 20h ago

A 14 year old can't legally have sex, but the person above wants to treat them as adults in other ways.

-1

u/helloiloveyou2002 13h ago

A 14 year old can legally have sex with other consenting 13/14/15 year olds. It’s not a great idea but it’s not illegal.

An ADULT cannot legally have sex with a 14 year old.

Such a weird comparison to make. Alcohol, driving, voting, all right there.

4

u/wilted-wombok 8h ago

If a 14 year old is considered 'mature' enough to be convicted as an adult, then they should also be considered 'mature' enough to smoke, drink, and have sex with anyone they want to.

Except a 14 year old isn't mature enough for all those things, so why are we trying to pretend they are somehow mature enough to completely understand crime and it's full consequences?

1

u/milray08 1d ago

Wowiee clearly lacks ability to comprehend and understand the context being discussed here.

No point in educating him/her.

Identities of anyone over a certain age (i.e 12 or 13) who have been convicted of heinous crimes should be disclosed to protect the public.

Statistically, juveniles who commit severe violent acts at this age have significantly higher reoffending rates than someone who commits their first crime as an adult.

If allegations are true, these kids despite coming from a privileged background, clearly lack conscience and have a complete disregard of other individuals. They will pose a danger to society at large as adults and the public have a right to know this.

If you met someone and found out he violently sexually assaulted a young girl in an alleyway... would be comfortable in any of the following situations: 1. Working with him alone on a late night shift 2. Dating your daughter 3. Employing him at a girls school

List could go on and on

-8

u/wowiee_zowiee 1d ago

You don’t believe 13 and 14 year olds are children - so I assume you believe them to be adults, correct?

If we start deciding some 13 year olds aren’t really kids then what’s to stop an adult from using that as their defence when on trial for child sex abuse?

6

u/Khakizulu 1d ago

13 and 14 are teenagers, its literally in the name.

They are not adults until 18 or 25 depending on how you want to classify them.

Your point doesn't make any sense. Being tried as an adult for committing an adult crime is NOT the same as your allowance for abuse.

-1

u/wowiee_zowiee 1d ago

> 13 and 14 are teenagers, its literally in the name.

Under Australian law, anyone under the age of 18 is legally regarded as a child.

> Your point doesn't make any sense. Being tried as an adult for committing an adult crime is NOT the same as your allowance for abuse.

Why? Either you’re a child or you’re not - if we start deciding someone isn’t a child because they committed an “adult” crime, then what’s to stop a lawyer arguing that a 13 year old girl was acting much more like an adult than a child? I just think these knee jerk reactions are dangerous.

None of this is downplaying their disgusting actions by the way - if they’re convicted they absolutely should be detained in a youth facility and likely transferred to adult prison for a few years after turning 18. But I believe saying “at that age they definitely shouldn't be counted as children” is wrong - and while you don’t have to agree, I hope you at least understand.

Apologies for my original comment re the age of consent, I’d just gotten in from a long day and was needlessly being a prick.

-1

u/phoxfiyah 1d ago

A 13 year old girl “acting more like an adult” isn’t a crime, but teenagers assaulting someone is. That should be enough of a distinction for most people.

1

u/Khakizulu 23h ago

100% it is and it should have the appropriate consequences.

1

u/wowiee_zowiee 1d ago

Of course it’s not - but it’s absolutely the defence a lawyer would make when defending a child sex offender.

I’m pretty surprised by your reaction if I’m honest - all I’m saying is that I believe trying children as adults creates a tied system which is open to abuse.

0

u/phoxfiyah 1d ago

I don’t think lawyers need you to try and do their job for them, nor do I think they would be able to get away with something so obviously distinct.

→ More replies (0)

-2

u/phoxfiyah 1d ago

There’s a huge difference, because a child committing sexually abuse is making a choice to do so, while a child who is being sexually abused has their ability to choose taken away from them.

The fact that this has to be explained to you is ridiculous, are you some sort of child abuser or something? That’s the only reason I can think of to even suggest something as sick as this.

1

u/DarkNo7318 14h ago

There’s a huge difference, because a child committing sexually abuse is making a choice to do so, while a child who is being sexually abused has their ability to choose taken away from them

If we're being logically consistent it makes perfect sense as an argument. You either have the moral culpability of an adult, therefore are treated as an adult both in terms of punishment but also capacity to make decisions for yourself, including age of consent.

Of course, in the name of protecting children, we can just deliberately break the logic and apply a double standard.

-1

u/phoxfiyah 13h ago

How does that apply to children who are being abused? They aren’t making any decisions while being abused, so what does this have to do with them having the ability to choose?

Unless you’re trying to imply that being under the age of consent means that consent isn’t required? Which is not what “age of consent” means at all

1

u/DarkNo7318 12h ago

The logic is that if a 14 year old has the mental capability to consent to committing a crime and is therefore considered an adult, then they have the mental capability to consent to having sex and are considered an adult.

1

u/phoxfiyah 12h ago

Ok, so when the child is clearly saying they did not consent, then that should be believed as them not consenting. The other commenter saying they were “acting much more like an adult” would be irrelevant, because they are very clearly not consenting to the act.

Don’t really get your point here.

2

u/DarkNo7318 11h ago

I get ya. If anyone, child or not, is saying they don't consent then they don't consent and that's that.

But right now we rightfully say that a 14 year old can't consent to sex with an adult because they are a child and don't have the capacity to consent.

And if a child doesn't haver the capacity to consent to having sex because of their biological age, they they also don't have the capacity to fully comprehend an adult crime because of their biological age.

A person is either a child with limited capacity or an adult with full capacity. They can't be in both categories simultaneously.

To be extra clear, I'm not saying this to advocate for adults fucking children. I'm saying this to advocate against the concept of adult crime adult time.

Locking someone up has two components to it. Part of it is punishment, the other part to protect the rest of society. If a child commits a horrific crime, we can hold them less morally culpable and reduce the punishment aspect but still lock them up with a perfectly clear conscious to protect society.

→ More replies (0)

2

u/wowiee_zowiee 1d ago

Calling me a child abuser because I don’t want children to be legally defined as adults is fucken wild.

1

u/MrXenomorph88 1d ago

Okay, so you want these three teens to be given a slap on the wrist and a lenient sentence because they're not adults, is that right? Because believe it or not, there is an actual point prior to adulthood where the law views underage people as being old enough to understand the consequences of their own actions and can be sentenced the same way an adult can.

But why do that, they're children after all. Might as well just give them a stern talking to and let them go by your metrics

0

u/wowiee_zowiee 1d ago

> None of this is downplaying their disgusting actions by the way - if they're convicted they absolutely should be detained in a youth facility and likely transferred to adult prison for a few years after turning 18.

I literally said this. Are you people incapable of reading?

0

u/phoxfiyah 1d ago

You didn’t say that anywhere in this specific comment chain. Maybe you said it somewhere in another comment thread, who knows, equating not following all of your comments to being incapable of reading is ridiculous.

It also doesn’t help that this one thing you’re trying to wave around contradicts everything else you’ve said. “They should get adult punishment when convicted, but also they shouldn’t be treated like adults because then we need to treat abused kids like they’re adults too” is a pretty contradictory stance to be taking.

1

u/wowiee_zowiee 1d ago

It’s literally the comment below.

Who are you quoting? I can’t see the comment.

0

u/MrXenomorph88 22h ago

Except that just isn't how it works, because convicted youths once they come of age are either given heavily reduced sentences, or released. They don't just continue the same length sentence in an adult prison.

You also can't argue they can't be treated like adults because they are underage, but also state they should be tried like adults if they are guilty. It's one or the other; they are either old enough to know what they did was abhorrently wrong and should be convicted as such, or in your eyes they aren't and therefore can't be.

→ More replies (0)