Boy’s alleged plane hijack plan ‘politically motivated’
A teenager accused of trying to hijack a commercial airliner was politically motivated when he pressed for his case to be heard in a higher court, prosecutors alleged.
The teenager, now 19, is accused of bringing a firearm and a fake bomb onto a plane at Avalon Airport, south-west of Melbourne, in March 2025.
There were approximately 160 passengers on the Jetstar flight to Sydney.
The teenager, who was 17 at the time, appeared in juvenile court via video link on Wednesday after prosecutors applied for his case to be heard in the district or superior courts.
The prosecutor argued that the sentences imposed in juvenile court (a maximum two-year supervision order) were inadequate to reflect the seriousness of the alleged crime.
“It cannot be said that protecting the community will be enough,” the prosecutor said.
The judge heard the teenager’s actions were ideologically or politically motivated, but details of the alleged motive were not discussed in open court.
The teenager’s lawyer argued that the alleged motive was still unclear as the prosecution opposed the enhancement application and pointed to a potential intellectual disability defence.
The lawyer claimed that the teenager’s mental health had deteriorated before the alleged crime, he was hearing voices and was distancing himself from others.
He said a psychiatrist suggested a possible diagnosis of delusional disorder and that the teen already had symptoms of autism spectrum disorder, anxiety and post-traumatic stress disorder.
“We say this case presents an unusual combination of challenges for a jury to decide this case impartially,” the attorney said.
The defense also rejected allegations that the teenager began planning the alleged hijacking in October 2024 after prosecutors claimed he searched online for Syrian airports and downed military aircraft.
“It is clear from his internet history that he has an interest in aviation,” the lawyer said.
The defense attorney argued that the teen’s case should remain in juvenile court, where the judge can decide the facts fairly and impartially.
The lawyer argued that the juvenile court also had the authority to impose an appropriate sentence, considering the teenager’s mental state.
However, the prosecutor argued that the case should be decided by a jury and stated that the judge could give instructions to prevent any bias.
“The instructions will not prevent a properly trained jury from performing its duty objectively and impartially,” the prosecutor said. he said.
The judge told the teenager he would need some time to consider all the material before making his decision.
The case will return to juvenile court in June.
Lifeline 13 11 14
beyondblue 1300 22 4636
