Abstract
In their article, ‘Australian terrorism legislation and children’s rights contraventions: Downloading violent extremist materials’, Ollie Gleeson-Payne and Brandy Cochrane consider the impact on young people of new laws criminalising accessing extremist materials.
Part One
Purpose: To consider the impact of slight variations in legal definitions of ‘recklessness’.
Background: The new offences discussed in the article apply where a person ‘intends’ to access material and is ‘reckless’ about the nature of the material. The legal concept of ‘recklessness’ is defined differently in different Australian jurisdictions. The Appendix to the Victorian Law Reform Commission’s 2023 publication, Recklessness: Issues paper (available on the VLRC website or via AustLII) gives an overview of different definitions.
Instructions:
1. Refer to the Appendix to the VLRC paper. Compare the Commonwealth definition of ‘reckless’ (which would apply to the extremist materials offences) against your state/territory definition, and one other definition. Make sure you read the footnotes which explain how different aspects of these definitions have been interpreted and applied. Are there significant differences between them? 2. Refer to the three scenarios provided by the Victorian Office of Public Prosecutions on page 12 of the VLRC paper. Consider whether you think different definitions of recklessness (possible/probable/substantial risk) would affect the outcome of a trial in those scenarios. Do you think one of the definitions is better than the others? 3. Refer to the discussion of ‘substantial and unjustified risk’ recklessness on pages 9–10 of the VLRC paper, especially the concerns raised in paragraphs 34 and 35. How do you think these concerns might affect a child who accesses extremism material? Do you think this is fair?
Part Two
Purpose: To consider alternative approaches to children’s interest in extremism.
Background: Gleeson-Payne and Cochrane refer to the Carrick case, involving a child who was involved in a Victoria Police diversionary rehabilitation program before the Australian Federal Police charged him with terrorist offences.
Instructions:
1. Refer to the Victorian Children’s Court judgment of CDPP v Carrick (a pseudonym) [2023] VChC 2, as well as media reporting of the case, then work as a class to identify key events and issues in the case. 2. Discuss whether you think the Victorian or Commonwealth authorities handled this situation appropriately. 3. Discuss whether you think the Children’s Court was right to grant a permanent stay in this situation. 4. Consider the broader issues raised in the article, and then discuss whether you think it is appropriate that the new offences relating to accessing extremism material apply to children.