LETTER TO THE EDITOR:
Dear Sir, I caught the news coverage of that horrific youth assault in Logan recently and was just utterly disgusted by it—especially the fact that they all walked out on bail, and the weak response to the girl who filmed the whole thing. It really stuck with me.
The sickening footage out of Kingston, Logan, isn’t just a wake-up call, it is a flashing red siren that Queensland’s juvenile justice system is fundamentally broken.
The facts are undisputed, indefensible, and stomach-turning. A 14-year-old boy named Callum, is described by those who know him as a kind, gentle soul whose disabilities prevent him from even registering social cues of danger, he was lured to a bus stop. There, he was ambushed, punched to the ground, and repeatedly stomped on the head. The results? A fractured skull, brain injuries, and permanent hearing loss. All while a 13-year-old girl filmed the carnage for digital clout.
Yet, the collective public fury has peak-stalled at a familiar roadblock: the perpetrators are walking free on bail.
If You Are Old Enough to Plan an Ambush, You are Old Enough to Stay in a Cell
The community’s response to the news that this pack of offenders was granted bail is unanimous outrage. The logic of the current legal framework is entirely backwards. The system treats these individuals as children who “don’t know any better” the second they face a magistrate, despite the fact that they acted with the tactical precision of seasoned criminals when luring, cornering, and brutally assaulting a vulnerable target.
An 11-year-old, a 14-year-old, and a 17-year-old managed to orchestrate a pre-planned, filmed ambush that left a boy permanently altered. If a person is old enough to understand how to bait a trap, film a crime, and violently stomp on another human being’s skull, they are old enough to face the immediate, non-negotiable consequence of a remand cell.
By releasing these offenders back into the community on bail, the justice system sends a message that the safety of innocent, disabled children matters less than the convenience of their attackers. It is a slap in the face to Callum’s traumatised family and a dangerous green light to the worsening epidemic of youth violence.
Apathic Leniency: The Girl’s Crucial Role Dismissed
Equally offensive to the public conscience is the weak, almost apathetic action taken against the 13-year-old girl who acted as the catalyst for this horror. Police statements that she has simply been “dealt with under the provisions of the Youth Justice Act” feel like a bureaucratic shrug. Let us be entirely clear: without her, this crime does not happen. She allegedly played the calculated role of the bait, deliberately luring a vulnerable boy to his coordinates, and then pulled out her phone to document his destruction.
To treat her actions as a lesser, secondary offense is a catastrophic failure of logic. She was the architect of the trap and the director of the footage. She deserves, at the very minimum, the exact same severe punishment as the boys who executed the physical assault. Shielding her under the cover of apathetic youth justice protocols diminishes her active malice.
The Role of Rightful Convictions as a True Deterrent
True justice must stand firmly on the principle that the system must protect the innocent by properly penalizing the guilty. While ensuring innocent people are never wrongfully convicted is paramount to maintaining public trust in the law, it is equally critical that rightful convictions carry sentences severe enough to act as an unyielding deterrent.
When there is zero doubt about identity, intent, or the horrific outcomes of an assault, the justice system must hammer the offenders with maximum penalties. If rightful convictions are softened by a preoccupation with rehabilitation, the law loses its power to deter future monsters. A civilized society requires that the consequence of a violent crime must be so severe that no teenager would ever consider rolling the dice on someone else’s life.
A Prime Case for “Adult Crime, Adult Time”—With Extra Penalties for Digital Clout
This is the ultimate test case for Queensland’s landmark “Adult Crime, Adult Time” framework. These children executed an adult-level atrocity, and they must face adult-level consequences. Because the crime involves the deliberate targeting of a person with an impairment, the law must apply the full weight of its maximum statutory penalties.
Furthermore, the law must evolve to penalize the sheer, arrogant stupidity of recording these acts. Filming a brutal assault to distribute online or keep as a trophy isn’t just evidence—it is an independent act of psychological cruelty against the victim and their family. There must be an immediate legislative shift to enforce mandatory extra prison time for any offender who films, distributes, or participates in the recording of a violent crime. If you are stupid enough to document your own savagery for digital clout, that footage should automatically lock your cell door for an extended sentence.
Yours,
Steven Fennell
Fennell is a Queensland resident and was exonerated of a wrongful murder conviction by the High Court. He has often contributed to wrongfulconvictionsreport.org and commented on posts.