Australia AUSTRALIA - 4YO AUGUST (GUS) Missing from rural family home in Outback, Yunta, South Australia, 27th Sept 2025

[RedHaus]

The police were going to go back over information collected, I’m guessing that means they’re looking more closely at anyone who has been to the property who saw Gus. JMO

Yes. And perhaps also verifying the last person or CCTV camera to see Gus alive OTHER than the three women at the Homestead, such as family, neighbors, stores, service stations, hired hands, construction contractors, postpeople, delivery drivers, teachers, physicians, etc.

ETA: change 'schools' to 'teachers'.

 

[RedHaus]

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.

RSBM

... or the investigation into this matter is incomplete, and so any associated criminal proceedings that MAY result from LE's investigation are simply pending. For instance, I might assume finding Gus dead or alive may help establish the degree to which such criminal failures occurred.

 

[Aron.Wor]

I have not checked out these threads till today, so I don't really know what's been discussed previously, but various people trained and involved with case and statement analysis have pointed to many red flags within the case, statements made by the family, and the behaviour surrounding the parties involved in the case.
Red flags have been raised regarding the family's behaviour and unwillingness to engage with the media.
Interestingly, I perceive the police's handling of the investigation, in context to media interactions, to be lacking in the assertion that the police might show if the circumstances of the people involved were otherwise.

 

[BreakingNews]

The police were going to go back over information collected, I’m guessing that means they’re looking more closely at anyone who has been to the property who saw Gus. JMO

And looking out for anyone who changes their story from the initial missing report. MOO.

 

[NingNang]

No evidence of foul play vs. nothing is off the table. Hmmmm.

Both can be true. The police haven't yet found any evidence of foul play, but that doesn't mean they've ruled it out.

A truly baffling case. Unless the police know more than the public, it seems Gus vanished without a trace. No evidence of where he wandered off to and no sign of his remains, but also no actual evidence that foul play has occurred. I hope there are answers one day.

 

[Bats]

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

I am not trained in legal matters so I can only express an opinion, if I may.

I would hazard a guess and say that since it is not known what happened to Gus, then how can it be criminal neglect? "Something" "may" have happened a minute after he was last checked on. Probably not, but just trying to make a point.

 

[Lady-J]

wandering has been ruled out? what??

Oops it’s not ruled out sorry just looking less likely and now they’re looking more closely at human intervention imo

 

[su5ie]

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

I feel this law could apply in many missing children's cases , Maddie mcCann for one being the most famous where negligence was clearly an issue

Many times when a young child is left alone in a situation with heightened danger, I feel the punishment is in the guilt the parents must feel but i do feel social status does affect whether charges are brought under the law you quote imo moo