Australian Children Face Arrests Under Flawed Extremism Laws
Experts are raising serious concerns about Australian laws that criminalize children as young as 10 for possessing material that is openly available on the internet. These controversial counter-terrorism measures have resulted in numerous arrests of vulnerable young people who may not fully comprehend they have committed criminal offenses.
Vulnerable Youth Caught in Legal Web
Court records reveal disturbing patterns among children charged under these laws. Many have autism diagnoses, language challenges, and social difficulties, raising critical questions about the criminal justice system's approach to counter-radicalization when dealing with young people with disabilities.
One particularly troubling case involved Sara*, a 14-year-old Muslim girl with autism who developed an interest in Nasheeds and began searching for information about wars and caliphates. When family members discovered disturbing videos on her phone and reported them to police, counter-terror detectives seized her devices and arrested her.
Sara was charged with possession of extremist material, despite telling police she had no intention of hurting anyone. Her collection included 19 clips containing "propaganda for the Islamic State and Hamas" that she gathered out of curiosity about war and her religion.
Legal System Grapples with Complex Cases
The magistrate handling Sara's case noted she "did not fully appreciate the wrongfulness of her actions" and may not have understood the intentions behind the material sent to her. Her case was eventually diverted to a mediation process rather than proceeding through traditional court channels.
Similar cases have emerged across Australia. In 2024, a 13-year-old Adelaide boy with autism faced charges that his barrister described as "an abuse of process, doomed to fail and oppressive." The charges were eventually dropped, but not before significant trauma to the child and family.
A 17-year-old Canberra boy pleaded guilty last year to possessing violent extremist material, including dozens of videos showing "murder by shooting, explosives, decapitation and the ISIS flag." The court recognized him as "a young person with significant neurological disadvantage" whose interest in the material was shaped more by rigid moral beliefs reinforced by his autism spectrum disorder traits than by any desire to harm others.
Blurred Lines in Digital Content
Security services have repeatedly warned about increasing youth radicalization in Australia, particularly through online connections and exposure to extreme content. Some far-right groups have explicitly discussed targeting young people, with one leader joking about recruiting "hundreds of autistic teenagers."
However, lawyers and terrorism experts question whether possession charges represent the appropriate response to youth radicalization, especially when such material proliferates freely online. A 2025 report found that 24 gore-related websites hosting terrorist material, war footage, and extreme pornography received approximately one million combined monthly visits from the United Kingdom alone, primarily from young men.
James Caldicott, a lawyer who has handled similar cases in South Australia, explained the difficulty young people face distinguishing between violent content, offensive material, news reporting, and legally defined extremist material. "Kids will join these channels on Discord, Telegram, Signal, and may be part of a group of thousands," he said. "It is a minefield. Someone might have 10 videos on their phone and not even realize they would be classified as extremist material."
Problematic Legislation and Unintended Consequences
While possessing material supporting terrorist act preparation has long been illegal in Australia, intentionally possessing violent extremist material only became a federal offense in 2023. According to the Independent National Security Legislation Monitor, 60% of those charged since have been children.
In South Australia, possessing extremist material that a reasonable person would understand as supporting terrorism has been against state law since 2017. Records show at least 10 people under 18 have been charged with this offense, compared with 26 adults.
Police acknowledge these charges serve as early intervention tools, with Australian Federal Police Commissioner Krissy Barrett stating the legislation "has been extremely useful" for disrupting radicalization pathways. However, significant questions remain about whether young people understand they have committed crimes rather than merely accessed offensive content.
Dr. Andrew Zammit, a terrorism and security researcher at Victoria University, stated bluntly: "On balance this is a bad law that raises more practical and moral problems than it solves." He warned about unintended consequences that could undermine counter-terrorism efforts if parents become reluctant to seek help for fear their children might face imprisonment.
Rehabilitation Challenges and Systemic Issues
The legal system faces particular challenges with children under 14, where prosecutors must overcome the principle of doli incapax – the presumption that someone so young lacks the knowledge to form criminal intent.
In one 2025 South Australian case, a 15-year-old boy pleaded guilty to possessing documents that could assist in terrorist attack preparation and extremist material. The magistrate noted his "severe language disorder," social issues, and disrupted childhood, observing that "the internet has largely raised you" since he gained unrestricted access at age five.
Forensic psychologist Ahu Kocak emphasizes how easily propaganda now reaches young people's devices. "Previously, it would have been more group, interpersonal-based," she explained. "You don't need to do that any more. Propaganda is now much more prevalent through things like TikTok."
Police Grapple with Appropriate Responses
Documents obtained through freedom of information laws reveal Australian Federal Police conducting internal reviews about investigating similar allegations involving young people with autism. One review followed a court finding that an undercover AFP officer had "fed" the fixation and "doomed" rehabilitation efforts for a boy with autism who later faced terrorism charges at age 14.
Dr. Vicki Gibbs, a clinical psychologist and autism researcher who has trained AFP counter-terror investigators, noted that while there has been an "uptick" in cases since 2020, it remains incredibly rare for young people with autism to become involved in counter-terror investigations. She emphasized that parents concerned about online behavior have multiple options beyond contacting police.
"It is a super low bar now, and then that has a huge impact on them, potentially for the rest of their lives," Gibbs warned. "And then you have law enforcement that are following things to the letter, and they don't understand the different ways autistic kids experience the world and communicate."
The ongoing tension between national security concerns and appropriate responses to vulnerable youth continues to challenge Australia's legal and social systems as they navigate these complex issues in the digital age.
