I’ve been absent from the main thread for a while for various reasons, but this is something I’ve been thinking about for some time and wanted to put to the group to get thoughts, particularly from anyone with legal or law-enforcement experience.
I want to ask a
procedural question about police decision-making, using the wording of South Australian law, rather than speculate about motives or outcomes.
Under
Division 1A of the Criminal Law Consolidation Act 1935 (SA), the offence of criminal neglect is defined quite broadly.
Section 13B makes a few things explicit.
An
act includes an
omission and a
course of conduct.
A
child means a person under
16 years of age.
Harm includes detriment to the
physical, mental or emotional wellbeing or development of a child, whether temporary or permanent.
A duty of care exists where a person is a parent, guardian, or has assumed responsibility for the child’s care.
Section 14 then provides that criminal neglect is made out where:
a child dies or suffers harm as a result of an act or omission,
the defendant had a duty of care,
the defendant was, or ought to have been, aware of an appreciable risk of harm, and
the defendant failed to take reasonable steps to protect the child, with that failure being serious enough to warrant a criminal penalty.
The offence does not require intent. It does not require identification of a specific moment where harm occurred. It expressly allows for
courses of conduct, omissions, and situations where harm is inferred from the outcome.
Given that framework, I am trying to understand how police appear to be approaching this matter.
Based on the publicly described timeline, a four year old child was left outside for a significant period of time, then disappeared and is now presumed dead. On its face, that raises questions about omission, duty of care, foreseeable risk, and failure to take protective steps, which are precisely the elements Division 1A is designed to address.
So my question is not whether anyone is guilty. My question is procedural.
Does the timeline as publicly described fall outside Division 1A, and if so, why?
Because if it does not, then the absence of any criminal neglect charge, or even public reference to that offence, seems to require some explanation. Either investigators believe one or more statutory elements are clearly not satisfied, or they are operating on facts materially different from those that have been publicly stated.
If the former, it would be useful to understand where police believe the threshold is not met.
If the latter, that suggests the public narrative may be incomplete.
This isn’t about blame. It’s about understanding how a law specifically designed to address neglect by omission is being applied, or not applied, in a case involving a missing four year old.
If anyone can shed light on how Division 1A is typically handled at this stage of an investigation, I’d genuinely appreciate it.
South AustraliaCriminal Law Consolidation Act 1935
www.dailymail.co.uk
