Case Explained: Australian children are being arrested under laws to ‘disrupt’ extremism: ‘On balance this is a bad law’ | Australian security and counter-terrorism – Legal Perspective

When Sara* was 14, a family member found disturbing videos on her phone and reported them to police. Counter-terror detectives came and seized the device, as well as her school laptop.

When she was interviewed by police, Sara was forthcoming. She had developed an interest in Nasheeds – chants often based on Islamic beliefs. She had started to search for information about wars and caliphates. She told police she had no intent of hurting anyone.

Sara was arrested and charged with possession of extremist material – one of almost a dozen young people, some as young as 13, who have been charged in Australia for having content such as Islamic State propaganda and the Christchurch massacre video on their computers and smartphones in the past five years.

Experts say broad laws that criminalise for children as young as 10 the possession of material openly available on the internet are problematic, and risk ensnaring vulnerable young people who may be unaware they have committed a crime. These concerns were expressed to federal parliament before it passed the law in 2023.

A Guardian Australia investigation has uncovered court records that show many children charged under these laws have an autism diagnosis, language challenges and social issues – raising questions about the criminal system’s approach to counter-radicalisation while dealing with young people with disabilities.

A clinical psychologist described Sara to the court as a “young, naive Muslim girl with autism”. Sara said she had collected the material – 19 clips including “propaganda for the Islamic State and Hamas” – out of curiosity and an interest in war and her religion.

A 15-minute bomb-making video had been sent to her by a man overseas on Discord, according to court records, but there was no evidence she sent it to anyone or intended to act.

“[Sara] did not fully appreciate the wrongfulness of her actions and may not have fully understood the intentions of the people or person who sent her the material, or the harm in her engaging with them,” the magistrate said at sentencing, after Sara pleaded guilty to possessing extremist material and possessing a document or record of information for a terrorist act. The case was diverted out of court to a mediation process, where her offending would be addressed to family conference.

In 2024, a 13-year-old Adelaide boy with autism was charged with possession of extremist material, in a case described by his barrister as “an abuse of process, doomed to fail and oppressive”. The charge was later dropped.

A Canberra boy, 17, pleaded guilty last year to possession of violent extremist material, including dozens of videos that showed “murder by shooting, explosives, decapitation and the ISIS flag”.

He was autistic and “a young person with significant neurological disadvantage”, the magistrate said. “[His] interest in the material was shaped less by a desire to harm and more by rigid moral beliefs reinforced by his ASD traits,” a psychologist told the court.

‘Blurry’ lines

Security services have repeatedly raised the alarm about the rising number of young people being radicalised in Australia, and the contribution of online connections and exposure to extreme or violent content.

Some far-right groups, such as Australia’s National Socialist Network, have explicitly discussed honing their appeal for young people. The leader, Thomas Sewell, in a video posted in 2025, joked about recruiting “hundreds of autistic teenagers”.

Yet lawyers and terrorism experts question whether charges predicated on possession of violent extremist material is the right way to push back against youth radicalisation, especially when such material is so pervasive online.

A report published in 2025, for example, found that 24 gore-related websites that host terrorist material, as well as war footage and extreme pornography, received an average of 1m combined total visits per month from the UK, largely from young men.

James Caldicott is a lawyer who has dealt with some of these matters in South Australia. He said it can be difficult for some young people to distinguish between content that is violent, merely offensive, or even part of news reporting, and what can legally be defined as 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 realise [they would be classified as extremist material]. There’s no real teachings about what they can access.”

Robyn Young, a psychologist and autism researcher at Flinders University, said knowing what kind of content would be legally classed as extremist can be “a little bit blurry”.

“We certainly do need to protect these people by educating them on the wrongfulness of a lot of this material, because many people would not appreciate that downloading this … material is against the law,” she said.

While possessing material that supports the preparation of a terrorist act has long been illegal in Australia, intentionally possessing violent extremist material only became a federal offence in 2023. According to the Independent National Security Legislation Monitor, 60% of those who have been charged since were children.

In South Australia, possessing extremist material – that a reasonable person would understand as supporting terrorism – without reasonable excuse has been against state law since 2017. At least 10 people under 18 have been charged with the offence; compared with 26 who were 18 and over, according to records obtained by Guardian Australia.

Evidence that an act of terrorism is being planned is not required, but police acknowledge such charges are used as a means of early intervention.

In a press conference held after the December 2025 Bondi attack, the Australian federal police commissioner, Krissy Barrett, said that the federal legislation in relation to violent extremist material “has been extremely useful” because it “has allowed us to … get in early under the radicalisation pathway and put people either before court or disrupt their behaviour at a very early stage”.

Yet there is also a question about whether some young people found with extremist material know they have committed a crime – not just that others may find the content offensive or repugnant.

“The rule of law requires that the law must be both readily known and available, and certain and clear. Most significantly it is essential that people know in advance whether their conduct might attract criminal sanction,” the Law Council said in 2023.

Other legal experts said there was “a real risk that children will be increasingly under surveillance by law enforcement, disproportionately be targeted by the offences”.

“On balance this is a bad law that raises more practical and moral problems than it solves,” said Dr Andrew Zammit, a terrorism and security researcher at Victoria University.

“Because there is no need to prove that the person possessing the material has any sort of terrorist intent, it will be exceedingly hard to judge whether it actually helps to prevent attacks.”

He also warned that there could be unintended consequences “that undermine counter-terrorism as a whole” if parents are less willing to reach out to the authorities for help if they fear their child could be imprisoned.

Children as young as 10 can be charged, although the attorney general must also consent to their prosecution of anyone under 18.

For those under 14, the state’s case must also overcome the principle of doli incapax – the presumption that someone so young does not have the knowledge to form criminal intent.

‘Dooming’ rehabilitation efforts

In 2025 in South Australia, a 15-year-old boy pleaded guilty to possessing documents that could assist in the preparation of a terrorist attack, as well as extremist material. He had also expressed white supremacist and racist views online. He was 14 when he committed the offence.

At sentencing, the magistrate acknowledged his “severe language disorder”, social issues and disrupted childhood. “You were given access to the internet unrestricted at about the age of 5 and it would appear that the internet has largely raised you,” he said.

Ahu Kocak is a forensic psychologist who has seen cases where people as young as 14 have been charged with possessing extremist material. She emphasises the ease with which propaganda can now land in someone’s phone or inbox.

“I think what’s happening is exposure to technology: the changes in the way organisations are now filtering their propaganda,” she said. “Previously, it would have been more group, interpersonal-based … You don’t need to do that any more. Propaganda is now much more prevalent through things like TikTok.”

Documents obtained under freedom of information laws from the AFP show police are also grappling with the issue of how to investigate similar allegations involving young people with autism.

An internal review was launched after 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 the age of 14.

The review terms state its purpose is to “inform the organisation on matters of appropriateness of investigation strategy decisions”. The complete review, a draft of which made 19 recommendations, was not released.

Dr Vicki Ward, a clinical psychologist and Aspect’s head of research, met the AFP as part of the review. She declined to comment on the case but, speaking generally, said that while there had been a small “uptick” in cases since 2020, it remained incredibly rare that young people with autism would become involved in counter-terror investigations.

Ward, who has trained law enforcement officers including AFP counter-terror investigators about autism, said police should not be the first call a concerned parent or loved one makes if they believe someone they know has accessed extremist material. An individual needs-based assessment is more appropriate, she said.

“It is a super low bar now, and then that has a huge impact on them, potentially for the rest of their lives,” she said. “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.

“I definitely don’t think you want to be calling police immediately.”

*Name changed for legal reasons