Melbourne Teenagers Refuse Court Attendance in High-Profile Murder Case
Two Victorian teenagers charged with murder have created a standoff with the judicial system by refusing to board the prison van to attend a scheduled Children’s Court hearing. The incident occurred as part of a broader case in which eight people have been charged with murder in connection with the deaths of Dau Akueng, 15, and Chol Achiek, 12, who were allegedly stabbed to death in Melbourne’s western suburbs last month. The escalating number of defendants—five of whom are under 18—has intensified scrutiny of how youth offenders are transported and brought before the court.
Chain of Events and Legal Tensions
Five defendants under the age of 18 were due to face the Children’s Court on Friday. Three of these cases were adjourned administratively, while a court order instructed the state’s youth justice department to ensure the remaining two defendants, a 16-year-old and a 15-year-old, attended in person. Prosecutors intended to apply for compulsory DNA sampling for these juveniles, a process requiring their presence in the courtroom.
The Refusal to Attend
When the matter was called shortly after 10am, counsel for the two boys disclosed that they had refused to board the prison van. The magistrate, frustrated by the development, summoned a youth justice manager to explain the department’s actions. The manager described efforts to motivate and encourage attendance, indicating there was no awareness that prison officers could use force to compel attendance.
“We need to find another avenue to bring them to court,” the prosecutor pressed, highlighting a gap between policy and practical enforcement. The magistrate characterized the situation as an “impasse” caused by the youth justice department’s non-compliance with the court order, noting how this friction undermines the administration of justice.
Judicial Frustration and Practical Realities
The magistrate stressed that while recusals by young defendants were not uncommon, the court cannot operate effectively without the defendants appearing as ordered. He warned against entertaining extreme alternatives, such as conducting a Children’s Court hearing at the youth prison, which he described as an unacceptable disruption to the normal judicial process. The adjournment was set for next Wednesday, allowing further attempts to secure attendance or alternative legal avenues to proceed.
Context and Implications for Juvenile Justice
The case is still in its early stages, with legal proceedings likely to eventually progress to Victoria’s Supreme Court if the accused are ordered to stand trial or choose to plead. The ongoing difficulty in securing court appearances for juvenile suspects underscores broader questions about the management of youth offenders, transportation logistics, and the protection of the rights of young defendants within the justice system. Critics may view the impasse as indicative of systemic hurdles in coordinating between courts, prosecutors, and youth services, while supporters argue that ensuring accountability and due process for juveniles remains paramount.
What Comes Next
As the matter advances, all parties will monitor how and when the two teens are brought before the court, and whether measures such as DNA sampling can be scheduled in a way that aligns with the defendants’ ability to attend. The outcome will contribute to the ongoing dialogue surrounding juvenile justice in Victoria and the effectiveness of procedures designed to balance public safety, due process, and rehabilitation for young offenders.
Related Considerations
With eight individuals charged in relation to the deaths, the case continues to attract attention from legal observers, families, and the broader Melbourne community. The court process remains a focal point for addressing violent crime while navigating the sensitivities and rights involved in cases involving minors.
