Key Points
- A 13-year-old boy, who is on the autism spectrum, was targeted in an AFP counterterrorism operation.
- A judge said the AFP's conduct fell "profoundly short of the minimum standards expected of law enforcement".
- The AFP has refused to say if officers who were involved in the operation will face consequences.
The Australian Federal Police (AFP) has refused to say whether officers who were criticised by a children’s court magistrate for "attempting to radicalise" a teenager with autism during a counterterrorism operation will face any consequences.
In a judgment in the Children’s Court of Victoria last year, a permanent stay was ordered of proceedings against the child, with Magistrate Lesley Fleming offering a blistering criticism of officers whose conduct Fleming said fell "profoundly short of the minimum standards expected of law enforcement officers".
The case involved a 13-year-old, given the pseudonym Thomas Carrick or TC, who is on the autism spectrum with an IQ of 71. He was described as an "isolated child without friends and has a tendency to fixate".
The 13-year-old and the AFP counterterrorism operation
In 2020, Thomas came onto the Australian Federal Police’s radar after the Victorian Department of Health and Human Services flagged his fixation with ISIS and terrorism, and that he had viewed material on his school’s computers.
The department’s report included allegations the boy had made threats to hurt a female student and sent a photo of a decapitated body to another student.
His parents then went to Victoria Police seeking help after they found him watching ISIS-related videos on his computer, and after he asked his mother to buy bomb-making materials. The father had told police that "he was prepared to sacrifice my son for the safety of the Australian community".
A therapeutic and rehabilitative process to support Thomas was then launched by Victoria Police, with a psychologist assessing that his fixation on ISIS was without religious ideology and that he "demonstrated little knowledge about Islam".
As part of the countering violent extremism program, the boy was also put in touch with a Muslim imam to teach him about Islam.
A few months later, an online covert operation known as OCO was launched to investigate the child for "the offence of acts done in preparation for or planning terrorist acts".
In Thomas’s first online interactions with the undercover officer "personas", he asked if they were spies.
"Do you work with the asio", Thomas asked, according to the judgment.
The undercover officer replied: "I hate these killab (dog in Arabic). Should I ask the same of you akhi".
"I am 13 years old," replied Thomas.
There is a subsequent building of rapport between the child and the undercover officer, with Thomas expressing concern for the officer's mother and sending him copies of his homework.
According to the judgment, in subsequent chats, the officer "encourages TC and tells TC his plan to make a bomb or kill a member of AFP is a good plan. The [second persona] tells TC that he will make a good sniper or suicide bomber".
But the judgment also states the level of naivete shown by Thomas, when he asked the officer questions like: "Why can’t America go to Woollies or Safeway to get their oil" and whether he could be in "the kids section of ISIS if he joined".
The operation culminated in Thomas being charged when he turned 14 after a knife with ISIS written on it was found in his bedroom.
Judge said AFP conduct fell 'profoundly short' of minimum standards
But in the judgment, Magistrate Fleming said Thomas not only had limited personal capability to give effect to his fixations, he had limited legal capacity for a prosecution.
Fleming said the community "would not expect law enforcement officers to encourage a 13-14-year-old child towards racial hatred, distrust of police and violent extremism, encouraging the child’s fixation on ISIS".
"By its conduct in attempting to radicalise [Thomas] for the purposes of gaining evidence to prosecute [Thomas] for the offences with which he has been charged, the AFP has completely and inevitably undermined the therapeutic process initiated by [Thomas]’s parents and the [countering violence extremism program] to seek help to engage [Thomas] in the therapeutic and rehabilitative process.
"The conduct engaged in by the JCTT (Joint Counter Terrorism Team) and the AFP falls so profoundly short of the minimum standards expected of law enforcement offices that to refuse this application would be to condone and encourage further instances of such conduct."
Fleming said the "evidence is implausible" that the AFP waited until the boy turned 14 to lay charges on him to avoid a claim of doli incapax, which is about the inability of children to form criminal intent when they're under the minimum age of criminal responsibility.
SBS News asked the AFP whether any action or proceedings had been taken against the officers named in the court judgment. The AFP did not address that question but provided the following reply:
"The AFP acknowledges the decision of the Court in October 2023.
"The AFP undertakes regular reviews of such outcomes to ensure our internal processes and operational practices remain contemporary and appropriate.
"The AFP, via the Joint Counter Terrorism Teams, continue to work closely with domestic and international partners to ensure the safety of the Australian community."
AFP leaders grilled in parliamentary hearing
On Monday, Greens senator David Shoebridge asked AFP senior leaders who appeared before a parliamentary hearing about the case, and whether anyone from the agency had been held to account.
Shoebridge criticised the agency for the "obscene abuse of power and authority" in the case.
"The radicalisation was happening as a result of the actions of your own officers," Shoebridge said.
"You’re radicalising kids. Has anyone been held to account?
"It was the AFP who recommended he become a sniper and a suicide bomber. It was the AFP who put that in his mind, a 13-year-old with autism and an IQ of 71."
Deputy Commissioner Ian McCartney, who was being questioned at the hearing, said it was not the intention of the AFP "to radicalise".
"The person was on the path of radicalisation long before we became involved," he said.
"That (radicalisation) was not our intent or purpose."
McCartney said there were “a range of reviews happening in terms of this matter" but would not confirm whether any action had been taken against officers involved.
AFP Deputy Commissioner Ian McCartney speaks at Parliament House last August. Source: AAP / Lukas Coch
Calls for a federal public inquiry
Adel Salman from the Islamic Council of Victoria described the case as an "egregious case of police misconduct" and called for the federal government to look into launching an inquiry.
"There's a pattern of behaviour that's been going on for many years but this is clearly the most egregious case that we’re aware of," he told ABC radio on Monday.
Salman said it wasn’t the only such instance he was aware of where parents have gone to police and "exactly the same thing has happened".
"Why would a parent have any trust or confidence in police after this?" he said.
"There must be a public inquiry – this has to be taken up to the highest levels of inquiry and it needs to be done as a matter of priority.
"We can't let this sort of behaviour continue."
