A 17-year-old appeared before a children’s court through a video link on Wednesday as prosecutors pushed to transfer his case to either the county or supreme court. This step underscores the seriousness with which the prosecution views the charges against the teenager.
The prosecution argued that moving the case to a higher court was necessary to adequately protect the community. While the specific details were not disclosed during the session, the magistrate was informed that the teen’s actions were allegedly driven by ideological or political motivations.
In contrast, the teen’s defense lawyer contested this motion, emphasizing that the alleged motive remains ambiguous. The defense hinted at a possible mental impairment defense, suggesting that the teen’s mental health issues could play a significant role in the case.
The defense highlighted a psychiatrist’s assessment that the teenager might suffer from a probable delusional disorder. This is in addition to his existing conditions, which include autism spectrum disorder, anxiety, and symptoms of post-traumatic stress disorder.
“This case presents a unique set of challenges,” the lawyer argued, noting the potential difficulty for a jury to impartially decide the outcome given the complex interplay of mental health issues.
“We do say this case presents an unusual combination of difficulties for a jury to decide this case impartially,” the lawyer said.
The defence also rejected claims that the teen started planning the alleged hijacking in October 2024, after prosecutors claimed the teen made multiple online searches for Syrian airports and the shooting down of military aircraft.
“It’s plain through his internet history he had an interest in aviation,” the lawyer said.
The defence lawyer argued the teen’s case should remain in the children’s court, where a magistrate could fairly and impartially decide on the facts.
Given the teen’s mental conditions, the lawyer argued the children’s court also had the scope to hand down an appropriate sentence.
But the prosecutor argued the case should be uplifted and decided by a jury, noting a judge could give directions to avoid any prejudice.
“Directions will not prevent a jury properly instructed from performing their task in an objective and unbiased manner,” the prosecutor said.
The magistrate told the teen he would need some time to consider all of the material before making a decision.
The case is due to return to a children’s court in June.
NEVER MISS A STORY: Get your breaking news and exclusive stories first by following us across all platforms.
