It is a crime that has horrified Sydney.
The alleged gang rape of a teenage girl by four people, described by police as a degrading incident that “beggars belief”.
The incident happened in December last year across south-western Sydney, with police making several breakthroughs since and arresting four youths, the most recent arrests just last week – with the crime then made public.
It is alleged that the attack lasted some six hours. The 17-year-old girl’s life has, without question, been forever changed.
The ages of those charged over their alleged roles in the attack make the whole situation even harder to fathom: a 14-year-old, a 16-year-old, an 18-year-old and a 19-year-old.
Only 19-year-old Adam Abdul Hamid can be named as one of the alleged perpetrators. With the other three males under the age of 18 at the time of the crime, they cannot legally be named.
Hamid, it should be noted, maintains his innocence. He was refused bail in court last week and is obviously entitled to the process that will follow.
There is a broader issue here that needs some attention.
The fact the 14-year-old, 16-year-old and 18-year-old will never be named, if found guilty, is something that I don’t think sits well with the majority of the community.
We have seen stories like this before, both here in Australia and overseas.
It is something justice systems the world over have grappled with, but by and large those under 18 are afforded anonymity, even if found guilty of the most atrocious and abhorrent crimes.
You have to ask yourself why.
It’s a question that Tegan Wagner asks herself regularly.
She was just 14 when she was raped by a gang of brothers in Sydney more than 20 years ago.
Despite being convicted, the brothers have never been named. They are known publicly only by their initials.
Wagner re-entered the media conversation last week, angry that those involved in the most recent attack won’t be named.
“Their age doesn’t change the fact that they have collaborated and [allegedly] raped somebody. These people should have to live with what they did for the rest of their lives, as the victims do,” she told The Sydney Morning Herald.
Let’s step away from the case currently before the courts and talk more broadly for the rest of this column.
The Children (Criminal Proceedings) Act 1987 prohibits the publication or broadcasting of the names of people under 18 involved in criminal proceedings.
But if you commit a crime such as a gang rape, should you really be considered a child?
Adult crime, adult time, adult consequences.
It shouldn’t be that hard to fathom, though any change to the Act would seem unlikely.
I’ve seen little appetite from either side of politics in New South Wales or Australia more broadly to alter the current rules.
Perhaps it makes sense to protect the identity of people under 18 when it comes to minor crimes.
There is an understanding there that misstep in youth should perhaps not follow you into adulthood and stop future employment, education or other opportunities.
But a crime like rape is not a misstep.
And if you are old enough to commit such a serious crime, you are old enough to face the scrutiny of the public.
That’s my view anyway.
Why are we hell-bent on protecting the future prospects of a 12, 13 or 14-year-old who has committed an abhorrent crime? I certainly don’t believe it would meet community expectations to protect them.
The victim is quite clearly forgotten in a lot of this process.
They must live with the impact of another person’s actions for the rest of their life and while justice may be served in theory, there will always be a missing element that the public will never really see that play out.
And what about other potential victims?
We have seen so many times over the years where a person is named and other people come forward, finding the strength to reveal their own experiences.
That never happens in cases where the identity of a perpetrator is protected.
We are in an era where tackling violence against women is finally in the national conversation.
We certainly are no longer in a period of silence.
And yet we are happy to remain silent about the most disgusting, degrading and disgraceful of criminals all because of the year they were born. And why? So they can live happy, fruitful lives 20 years down the track?
We need to review the Act. It may well be that a minor should not be named after being charged, as adults currently are.
But if they are found guilty, and if the crime is at such a serious level as rape or murder or in that ilk, then it is hard to fathom anyone suggesting they should retain their anonymity.
They will eventually be released, and the public will have no idea.
Someone who agrees to go on a date with that person will have no idea.
Someone who employs them will have no idea.
Their next victim will have no idea.
If governments are serious about tackling violence against women, then this is an element that needs to change.
We should not allow attackers of women to have their names hidden from the public.
They gave up that right when they committed said crime, regardless of their age.
Troy Dodds
Troy Dodds is the Weekender's Managing Editor and Breaking News Reporter. He has more than 20 years experience as a journalist, working with some of Australia's leading media organisations. In 2023, he was named Editor of the Year at the Mumbrella Publish Awards.