The age of criminal responsibility in South Australia is 10 and, over the past few decades, children that young have been prosecuted for truly surprising offending.

One pre-teen boy stole the family car and took it on a joy ride, from the Spencer Gulf to the city – bringing SA Police along in his high-speed wake.

When he finally pulled over, police were stunned to see the boy sitting on phone books to see over the dashboard and using garden tools to reach the pedals.

There is, perhaps, a level of wry amusement in that sort of case – others, far less so.

In the early 2000s, a 10-year-old boy faced the court accused of having raped his adult, female babysitter – his older brother was charged with assisting him to do so.

And in November 2008, two 17-year-olds were accused of bashing and blinding a 78-year-old flamingo in his Adelaide Zoo enclosure.

The incident horrified the public but the case was eventually dropped due to a lack of substantive evidence.

Unseen by the greater public, the Youth Court handles cases of intimate partner violence, drug offending, stabbings and sex crimes allegedly committed, by children, daily.

Those cases deemed truly serious are transferred to the District or Supreme Courts for sentencing but, even then, the Youth Court’s guidelines remain in force.

A judge’s task is to ensure “care, correction and guidance” for the youth so they may rejoin society as a positive, contributing member – not to punish them like an adult offender.

That legislative duty is important to keep in mind when considering the history of SA’s more notorious teen offenders, and the outcomes of cases that shocked the state.

THE BOMB MAKER

Less than a year after a Riverland duo walked from court, having been prosecuted over their dreams of a massacre Adelaide found itself confronted by another explosive situation involving a teenager.

Like the diarist, this 16-year-old was a deep thinker who felt the angst of teenage life acutely, turning him into an outcast against his will.

Like the blacksmith, he was ferociously intelligent and highly skilled, possessed of a mechanical acumen that would be the envy of people twice his age.

However, the boy who shocked SA by taking a potentially lethal homemade bomb on a suburban bus differed from the “massacre plotters” in one important way.

His crime was not motivated by hatred, nor anger, nor a desire for revenge – instead, his goal was to reforge a series of fractured friendships, even if he had to do so by force.

On March 5, 2019, SA Police arrested the boy at his southern suburbs home following reports from several frightened members of the public.

Their testimony, backed by CCTV camera footage, accused the boy of riding a bus while carrying a self-made explosive device in his backpack.

Police who investigated his home further alleged other bombs were found in his bedroom.

He spent three weeks in custody before facing the Youth Court charged with nine offences, including endangering life and manufacturing and possessing explosives.

Within a month, the boy and his counsel had approached prosecutors with an offer – he was prepared to plead guilty to making and carrying bombs.

In exchange, they wanted the endangering life charges dropped, insisting the only person to whom he had posed a danger was himself.

Prosecutors were loathe to take the deal, drawing the ire of both the boy’s counsel and Youth Court Magistrate Luke Davis.

“They’ve had a good five weeks and I would have thought this would be a relatively straightforward decision, one way or the other,” Stephen Ey, for the boy, said in July 2019.

Mr Davis agreed.

“Blind Freddy can see how serious this matter is, and the Director of Public Prosecutions needs to make a timely decision,” he said.

“We’ve got a young man with no prior criminal history who’s been languishing in the youth detention centre for some four months.

“I’m not shooting the messenger but this is disappointing.”

Though chastened, prosecutors weren’t about to alter their stance and returned to court a few days later to ask the boy be tried as an adult.

With their client now facing a maximum 18-year prison term, defence counsel returned to the negotiating table in an attempt to broker a second deal.

By September they had succeeded and, instead of hearing argument about an adult trial, the court was told the parties had resolved their dispute.

With the endangering life count “replaced” by that of possessing an explosive device in public, the path to sentencing was finally clear.

While the case still had to shift to the District Court – owing to the seriousness of the offences – the boy remained under the umbrella of the Young Offenders Act.

That guaranteed his penalty, whatever it may be, would still focus on his “care, correction and guidance” rather than being a punishment to deter himself and others.

Despite the fraught negotiations and the passage of time, neither the court nor the public had any idea why the teenager had acted in the first place.

In February 2020, Mr Ey revealed his client had built the bomb not to destroy anything, but in a misguided attempt to rebuild lost friendships he so deeply valued.

The teenager’s plan, he explained, was to travel to the homes of his former friends, show them the bomb and force them to all sit down together and discuss their problems.

Though academically gifted, the teenager had become “marginalised and friendless” due to both those unresolved issues and his own “significant disabilities”.

“His thought was ‘I’ve got a bomb, they will all go with me and then they will be friends again’ … this was a desperate cry for help,” Mr Ey said.

From the dock, the boy – who had spent his 17th birthday in custody – read a self-penned letter of apology.

He said he was disgusted at himself for taking such drastic action and ignoring his friends’ right to make their own choices.

“I was going to fix the chasm between friends … free will is at the core of my morality and I’m disgusted I did not take it into account,” he said.

“I foolishly projected my own beliefs on to my former friends … they were not meant to be scared, to cry, but they did and I was the cause.

“In my attempt to not be a burden to anyone, I had become the greatest burden of all.”

He conceded there was “no excuse” for what he had done, and that the consequences were “mine alone to bear”.

“I cannot do anything to fix what I have done but what I can hope to do is seek forgiveness – not just from my friends and family, but from the greater community,” he said.

“All I want is to be forgiven, and maybe that’s selfish … I want everyone to know I’m truly sorry.”

His words rang true with Judge Barry Beazley who, on March 2, spared him any further time in custody and placed him on a two-year, $200 good behaviour bond.

“You had constructed an explosive device by following the instructions … you did so in a competent manner and it was functional,” he said in sentencing.

“You went to see one of your former friends, showed it to her and were shocked when she became distressed rather than impressed.

“You could not understand why she would be distressed – from your point of view, you believed you were in control of the device.”

He said it was clear the boy had intended no harm – but it was also clear he must learn to appropriately deal with how friendships can change or end over time.

“After leaving primary school you lost your friends … you will, in time, understand that was not a reflection on you but is common to all young people,” he said.

“You will need to put those friendships out of your mind and forget them … you will make new friends in the future, there’s no doubt about that.

“You have spent 11 months and 26 days in youth detention … you have been in custody long enough.

“You will wipe your slate clean by staying out of trouble and being of good behaviour.”

THE KIDNAPPERS

Beautiful beaches, renowned wineries, a laid-back city lifestyle and easy access to the rugged Aussie outback – Adelaide has much to offer the overseas tourist.

Despite those attributes, the City of Churches has something of a dire international reputation due to the truly sickening fates that have befallen some visitors.

In 1993, German tourist Anne Neumann was raped and murdered by Miho Christian Alavija, who threw her body down a mineshaft at Coober Pedy.

Ms Neumann vanished just 19 months after Italian tourist Anna Rosa Liva disappeared in the Far North town – a crime that has never been solved.

The murder of British backpacker Debra Westmacott two years earlier also remains an ongoing cold case – she was stabbed at a Gouger St telephone booth.

Almost a decade later, in 2001, international student Megumi Suzuki was raped and murdered by serial killer and repeat sex offender Mark Errin Rust.

Her heartbroken parents, Youichi and Masako, did not mince words when it came to their opinion of SA’s capital.

“We don’t want the people of Japan to misunderstand that Adelaide, with so many wonderful people, is a dangerous city,” Youichi told his country’s media.

In more recent times, sex predator Roman Heinze and his copycat, Gene Bristow, made headlines by kidnapping and raping international backpackers.

Though each of these crimes stunned and horrified locals, Adelaide’s economy relies on overseas students and so the tourism outreach continues unabated.

Then, in December 2018, two teenagers – aged just 15 and 16 – decided they could offend just as well as any adult, and subjected two French nationals to a terrifying, appalling ordeal.

The visitors, known as “Alice” and “Louis” to protect their real identities, had only been in Australia for two weeks when they took a walk along Hindley St.

Having come across the boys, they asked where they could score cannabis – which gave the 15-year-old an idea.

The habitual drug user, who was consuming cocaine daily, had a CBD apartment to himself and invited Alice and Louis to come back for drinks.

Once they were settled in, he promised, he would call his drug dealer and arrange for a delivery.

Alice and Louis accepted the invitation but, within minutes of their arrival, found themselves caught up in a nightmare.

Instead of dialling his phone, the 15-year-old pulled on a pair of gloves and armed himself with a hunting knife, while the 16-year-old brandished a hammer.

His mood swinging wildly, his behaviour erratic, the younger boy started playing rap music at full volume, dancing and laughing as his captives’ senses were assaulted.

Aggressively, he demanded the tourists’ wallets – traumatically, he then blindfolded and separated them in different parts of the spacious apartment.

In the upstairs toilet, the 16-year-old gagged Louis with one of Alice’s tampons and continued to menace him with the hammer.

Downstairs, Alice found herself at the mercy of the 15-year-old who demanded she strip for his amusement – and then perform sex acts upon herself.

If she failed to comply, he threatened, not only would he and his friend harm her and Louis, but they would also burn their passports and trap them in Adelaide.

Appalled and fearful, Alice did as he demanded – but only to a point, heroically and bravely refusing some of his more crass, vulgar commands.

After 25 agonising minutes, the 15-year-old took photos of the tourists in their vulnerable states and ordered they speak to no one of the incident.

“This is how we do business here,” the 15-year-old boasted when he finally let Alice and Louis leave the apartment.

“Welcome to Adelaide.”

Free at last, neither Alice nor Louis had any intention of following their tormentor’s commands and went straight to the nearest SA Police station.

Officers mobilised immediately and, within the hour, both teenagers were arrested.

Sadly, the Youth Court process did not move as swiftly as did police – the duo did not face the District Court for sentencing submissions until March 2020.

The 16-year-old confessed to kidnapping and robbery, while his friend – the ringleader – pleaded guilty to those charges and to compelling Alice to sexually manipulate herself.

In her victim impact statement, Alice said she still fantasised about revenge.

“Everyday while I was still in Australia, I imagined coming across my aggressor and getting my revenge somehow, humiliate him, as he humiliated me,” she told the court.

“There were days when I thought I would go to his parents, and ask them how their child could possibly do that.

“I will never forget the way he looked at me, what he ordered me to do, my fear and the fact I did nothing – I did not defend myself, even though I believed it was safer not to.”

She said there was not a day in which she did not relive her ordeal.

“I lied to my family because I am ashamed about my status as a victim of sexual assault,” she said.

“I often have dreams or nightmares about what happened – I feel dirty and defiled for having been forced to do all of that in front of that guy.

“I relive that horrible day when I thought I was going to die.”

Louis spoke of his ongoing guilt at accepting the invitation, saying he only realised afterwards “how bad that was”.

“Prior to that, I had not really been confronted with any kind of violence or physical threats and that is why I went inside with little hesitation – not expecting for one moment that would happen,” he said.

“The fact that we obeyed their demands when they threatened us, let me think that we would leave without being subjected to any physical aggression.

“That was the case for me, but not for Alice … the leader did not appear to be mentally stable – he switched from being calm to very angry and without any apparent reason.”

Counsel for the boys urged a merciful approach, citing the 15-year-old’s drug issues and the 16-year-old’s ignorance of Alice’s fate.

He was, they said, completely unaware of what his friend had done to the French woman until confronted with it by police.

Judge Paul Slattery was not moved by those submissions, dubbing the incident “violent, premeditated and callous”.

“You appear to have obtained a level of perverse satisfaction from the violent robbery and the cruel degradation and humiliation of your victims, especially the female victim,” he said.

“Her sexual humiliation and your cruelty was at the extreme end of the scale, and it continued for a long period of time.

“That was abhorrent behaviour inflicted upon two highly vulnerable people who were strangers to this country.”

He said the gravity of the pair’s crimes meant they deserved to be sentenced as adults rather than youths – deserving more of punishment than correction.

“You knew how vulnerable the victims were and you took a perverse pleasure in so cruelly tormenting them – that is very serious offending,” he said.

He jailed the 15-year-old for three years and 10 months, with a non-parole period of 20 months.

The 16-year-old was jailed for two years and five months, but that term was suspended on condition of a two-year good-behaviour bond.

READ PART 1 HERE