Second teenager charged with bashing schoolgirl at Gilles Plains denied bail

A second teenager charged over the vicious assault of a 13-year-old schoolgirl at Gilles Plains has been refused bail after a court was told she instigated the attack.

The attack occurred outside Gillies Plains McDonalds’.

• New threat – as alleged victim vows to live her life
• How to get the most out of your Advertiser digital subscription

The older of two teens charged over the bullying and bashing of a schoolgirl has been refused bail after a court heard she had arranged and instigated the brutal attack.

On Tuesday, the Youth Court declined to release the girl, 15, under any conditions – meaning she, like her 14-year-old co-accused, will remain in detention until the case has resolved.

Magistrate Luke Davis told the girl it could not be ignored that the attack was the second unprovoked assault she stood accused of committing, highlighting the need to protect the community.

The assaulted schoolgirl with her mother. The girl was assaulted at Gillies Plains after just a week at high school. Picture: Matt Turner

He noted she had a loving, supportive family keen to guide her, but said that could not outweigh what she allegedly did to her victim.

“You say this was prompted by an Instagram post … surely something you heard, second-hand, that might have been said on social media is no reason to do what you did,” he said.

“You started it … she was young, she was attacked, she has serious injuries, you were on bail and you started it.

“I’m not satisfied you are a suitable candidate for bail.”

The girls, who cannot be named, have yet to plead to charges including multiple, aggravated counts of assault and breaching bail.

Their charges arise from their alleged conduct during and after an assault upon a girl, 13, outside the Gilles Plains Shopping Centre on Tuesday last week.

The alleged victim, who had just started high school, will need at least a month to recover from a concussion and spinal damage.

She also lost two front teeth and doctors believe she will need further dental reconstructive work that will take at least 12 months to heal.

Last week, the 14-year-old accused was rearrested, charged and refused bail after allegedly making renewed threats against the victim on Instagram.

Both she and the 15-year-old have claimed the assault was a response to racist comments made on the alleged victim’s social media feed.

On Tuesday, prosecutors said they had now viewed CCTV of the assault.

“This accused told police that she had been told the victim had made a racist comment and so invited (the 14-year-old) to attend at the McDonald’s,” they said.

“There was a conversation for a moment before this accused struck the victim two to three times to the head with her open hand … that was the start of the assault, she acted alone.

“She then grabbed the victim by the hair and dragged her to the ground … the victim stood up and tried to walk away but this accused grabbed her by the hair again and tackled her to the ground.

“At that point the co-accused started kicking the victim and this defendant joins in … the victim was kicked five to six times.”

They said the assault mirrored an early act of violence allegedly committed by the 15-year-old in Rundle Mall in September last year – charges that have yet to be resolved.

“The victim of that offence saw this defendant and her two co-accused, who are not involved in the (schoolgirl) assault, walking past as he was playing with his phone,” they said.

“He heard one of the group say ‘you’re not going to have a good night’ … he was attacked by all three people, punched and kicked to the head and ribs.”

Prosecutors urged the court to refuse bail given the severity of the alleged offences and the fact the teenager’s proposed bail address was just 2km from the schoolgirl’s home.

“When interviewed by police she was laughing about her actions … she showed little remorse,” they said.

Mr David agreed, remanding her in custody to a hearing in two weeks.

“There’s strong evidence you attacked someone, unprovoked, who was minding their own business,” he said.

“After you were arrested and bailed for an offence of serious violence, you then – for some unknown reason – attacked the victim of the second offence.

“Bail is refused.”