Dau Akueng, Chol Achiek deaths: Two alleged teen killers refuse court, DNA sampling

Two alleged child killers have refused to attend court after police revealed plans to swab for their DNA, a court has been told.

The two boys, who cannot be named due to their age, were due to appear in a Children’s Court on Friday, three weeks after they were charged with murder.

Instead, the court was told, the pair refused, with Youth Justice, the government agency tasked with managing young people in the criminal justice system, offering only encouragement to ensure their attendance.

The two teenagers were among eight people charged last month over stabbing murders of Dau Akueng, 15, and Chol Achiek, 12, in Cobblebank on September 6.

Police allege the victims were walking home from a basketball game when they were ambushed by a group of masked people wielding machetes and long-edged weapons.

Five males have been charged with murder over Dau’s death, and three others were charged over Chol’s.

The two boys’ cases were called in court on Friday, after police applied for a court order to compulsorily obtain DNA samples as part of the ongoing investigation into the attack.

The court was told the case had originally been listed earlier in the week, however the children had not been brought in as required.

Children’s Court president Judge Jack Vandersteen then made a jail order compelling Youth Justice to ensure they attended.

Instead, Youth Justice senior assessment manager Brady King told the court both boys had “refused to attend”.

Speaking about one boy, Mr King said he had refused “due to not wanting to be subject to the DNA extraction”.

He said staff had explained multiple times the “requirement to attend” but the boy had “continually refused”.

Under questioning from senior Crown prosecutor Kristie Churchill, Mr King said when a young person refused, Youth Justice would attempt to “motivate and encourage” them to attend.

“Are you aware of any ability of Youth Justice to use any reasonable force to ensure attendance?” Ms Churchill asked.

“I am not,” Mr King responded.

Judge Vandersteen said it appeared the court was now at an “impasse” with the Victorian government, through Youth Justice, saying they don’t have the power to force a young person to attend or they were choosing not to use it.

“It’s frustrating the administration of justice,” he said.

“The court has made an order, how that is to be effected is then a question for the executive.

“The perspective of the court is: an order is made and there’s the expectation it would be complied with.”

He said it was not the responsibility of the child to comply with his court order, but Youth Justice to give effect to it.

Ms Churchill suggested the court had powers to sit “at any place”, however this was shot down by Judge Vandersteen.

“We’re not all going out there (to the youth custody centre),” he said.

“I’m not creating an scenario where I’m having a court sitting because a child refuses.

“I’m interested in the black and white letter of the law and it’s compliance.”

The judge said this situation was not an “infrequent occurrence” for the Children’s Court, and suggested the seriousness of this case meant it was an “appropriate vehicle” to challenge the government’s failure to comply with the jail order.

Ms Churchill requested the matter be adjourned until next week for her to review the law and the options.

A lawyer for one of the boys agreed, suggesting if counsel could explain the “totality of the situation” to their clients it may resolve.

The matter was adjourned and will continue next week.

The three other children charged following Dau and Chol’s alleged murders will return to court later this month.

The three adult co-accused are next scheduled to appear in court in December.