Australian Teen Faces Explosives Charges for Chlorine Bomb

[megalomania]

August 26, 2006 02:23pm
Article from: AAP

A teenage boy has been charged with making explosives after two houses were attacked with chlorine bombs in Brisbane.

The 17-year-old allegedly threw the bombs at a house in Hollywood Street, Runcorn, and a house in Taminga Street, Sunnybank, both on Brisbane's southside, on Wednesday, police said today.

The bombs, which the teenager is alleged to have made, caused only minor damage to the properties, a police spokesman said.

The boy, from Brisbane's southside, will appear in Brisbane Magistrates Court on September 14, facing two charges of manufacturing explosives and two of causing wilful damage to a dwelling.

[megalomania]

Oh, this rich. You call something a “bomb” and you get explosives charges slapped on you. This sounds like the boy mixed some Sani-Flush and bleach in a pop bottle. This is neither a bomb nor an explosive by any stretch of the imagination. Of course, it is easier for the sheeple to digest the word “bomb” instead of “chlorine generator.” Unless the boy had somehow managed to duplicate the Second Battle of Ypres, the charges against him are baseless. This is his lawyers job, though. However, this is Australia, and for all I know he faces summary execution for violation of the Chemical Weapons Convention. If he is guilty of violating the CWC they should give him a billion dollars in bailout money and let him build a nuclear reactor for his energy needs. That’s how the UN works right?

[HoS]

I remeber reading about some teens in the US that got arrested for some "The Works" and Al foil "bombs" I'll see if I can dig up the story. In the "news"' story they got some sheeple to talk about how quite the place is/was and how they wonder why any one can do something so dangerous. :rolleyes:

Its getting worse for us hobbyists, imageine the hayday the media would have with true HEs... :(

*edit* typo

[Alexires]

For those that care -

"explosive" means —

(a) gunpowder, nitro-glycerine, all compounds and mixtures containing nitro-glycerine, gun-cotton, blasting powder, fulminate of mercury or of other metal, coloured fires, and every other substance, whether similar to those abovementioned or not, used or manufactured with a view to produce a practical effect by explosion or a pyrotechnic effect; and

(b) fog-signals, fireworks, fuses, rockets, percussion caps, detonators, cartridges, ammunition of all descriptions, and every adaptation of preparation of an explosive as above defined;

They might try to get him on the last part of part (a) or (b).

If they do -

(3) A person who manufactures an explosive at an unauthorised place is guilty of an offence.
Maximum penalty:
(a) in the case of a body corporate—$35 000;
(b) in any other case—$5 000 or imprisonment for 12 months, or both.


Interestingly enough is this (for licensed premesis) -

(2) This section shall not apply to explosives kept by any person for his own use, the weight of which in the case of gunpowder does not exceed 15 kilograms, or in the case of any other explosive, 3 kilograms, but that in no case shall the exemption provided for by this subsection extend to the keeping of more than one hundred detonators.


Anyway, I'm thinking they will get him with part (a) with the "produce a practical effect by explosion".

Bugger for him, what they hell was he doing anyway? Stupid kewl.

[c.Tech]

I don’t think he will get very long, if any time because of the common sense they have to put behind every case. They also have to look at previous cases in higher courts and follow the decisions made in cases with the same circumstances.

I don’t think there would have been many cases in the same circumstances where a 17-year-old actually got convicted.

Wait a tick, magistrates? Wouldn’t he be going to the children’s court, which is no the same level as the magistrates court?

But I fear for the kewl that changes may have been made to that act or a new act brought into place during the time of terrorism we live in.

I'm basing all my knowledge on the Victorian law system which I’m guessing is nearly exactly the same as QLD.

P.S. Was the act on a federal or state level? Because it could get overruled if a federal act was brought in.

[nbk2000]

The 17-year-old allegedly threw the bombs at a house in Hollywood Street, Runcorn, and a house in Taminga Street, Sunnybank,...


That's the part that'll stuff him, the throwing of the 'bombs' at houses.

It's one thing to set off a 'bomb' in a deserted field, and an entirely different thing to throw them at an occupied house.

[festergrump]

...and an entirely different thing to throw them at an occupied house.
Add to that if the occupants are "people of color" and the defendant teen is white. Now you have a "HATE crime"!:rolleyes: "Oh, the horrible little Nazi bomber...".

[FragmentedSanity]

By chlorine "bomb" I was thinking it was more likley a two part incendry mix, as hes being charged with damaging a dwelling; which to me implies more than just a slight gassing.
Also caling it an explosive implies there was at least fire. I know of case where methylated spirits was termed "Gunpowder or other explosive" by the police and the DPP.
The fact he repeated the action at a second house only goes to prove that deliberatley trying to cause damage; ie willfully carrying out a crime.
The fool will probably get off the explosive charges. But the charges for damageing property will likley stick.
Of course I could be wrong - it would be interesting to here some more details on the case, we may after it goes to court.

[Alexires]

Not sure c.Tech, it is an absoloutel bitch to work ones way through the legal bullshit.

I'm betting that there will be some kind of federal law over the top of that, but still, it was an interesting side note.

[c.Tech]

Not sure c.Tech, it is an absoloutel bitch to work ones way through the legal bullshit.
It is also almost impossible to find the right act through the net.

I was trying to get the right act for drug charges for a legal studies project and they were near impossible to find.

I resorted to using the NSW act.

I'm betting that there will be some kind of federal law over the top of that, but still, it was an interesting side note.
When there is a federal law on top of a state law, the state law no longer exists.

It is either federal or state, another problem is it could be from a different state like WA.

I'm guessing universally the laws will be near exactly the same from state to state.

[shady mutha]

The bottom line is its a dangerous hobby were caught up in, and in the current legal climate you dont want be caught with chemicals or doing anything with explosives. You can bet your bottom dollar you will be made a example of.

[megalomania]

Oftentimes, at least in American cases like this, the suspect gets many charges leveled against them by the police, but very few of those charges actually stick in court. Cops always charge you with everything in the book hoping that something will stick, but then the lawyers who actually have educations and a real knowledge of the law sort everything out.

What we read in the headlines are only about terrorist suspects causing death and destruction with explosives and bombs. What we do not read are the follow-up stories weeks or months later, buried somewhere past page 6, where the suspect gets community service for acts of vandalism.

I have a relative who was accused of making “terroristic threats” against his school shortly after 911 that resulted in town-wide panic, ominous headlines, and a witch hunt. If I didn’t know him I never would learned that he was not actually charged with anything, and only received a lengthy suspension. It was all blown completely out of proportion. The threat was an off color remark made in a chat room to a teenage girl, who in turn embellished the threat to school officials, who further embellished the danger to the police and the media. By the time the real facts of the situation were known, nobody cared anymore. The newspaper had its headline, sold a few extra copies, and promptly buried the follow-up in a small paragraph a month later.

[Hobbit Porn]

Wait a tick, magistrates? Wouldn’t he be going to the children’s court, which is no the same level as the magistrates court?



No, it's correct that he will appear infront of a magistrate. With regard to criminal cases, people are seen as adults once they are of the age of 17.

I'm pretty sure this applies to all of Australia, not just Queensland.

[inventorgp]

Runcorn eh. There are a lot of gangs down there. I'm glad I don't live on the Southside.

Actually, most adult sheeple think that when you are 18 you are a responsible and mature person. Although the legal adult age varies. He would have been better off making 500g of AP (and not throwing it at a house) than a stupid chlorine generator. The chlorine is more lethal than the plastic bottle anyway. He probably got in trouble from the damages he caused.

500g of AP referring to Explosives Act 1999.

[SQRLS]

I once had a fellow student jokingly threaten me with bringing a gun to school and shooting me. Someone overheard and turned him in. After sitting in a juvenile detention center for a weak (and missing his moms wedding) they released him with no charges. He happened to be one of my many stupid friends.

I think they need to stop blowing everything out of proportion. Unless someone was seriously hurt, or someone was really going to die, they should just leave it alone.

[Jacks Complete]

That will never happen. Stop blowing things out of all proportion, and people might be able to get on with things, and become a mite more self-reliant, rather than clamouring for yet more rules, guidance (that becomes law) and more power to others, so they may better tell you what to do and think.

[c.Tech]

I found the Victorian crimes act 1958. http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/v..._act/ca195882/

Here are the relevant section. I don’t think there is anything about bottle bombs. Maybe the law makers at parliament got something right for once .

http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/vic/consol_act/ca195882/s317.html
CRIMES ACT 1958 - SECT 317
Offences connected with explosive substances

317. Offences connected with explosive substances



(1) In this Division unless inconsistent with the context or subject-matter-



"explosive substance" includes-

(a) any material for making any explosive substance;

(b) any apparatus machine implement or materials used or intended to be
used or adapted for causing or aiding in causing any explosion in or
with any explosive substance; and

(c) any part of any such apparatus machine or implement.

(2) Any person who unlawfully and maliciously causes by any
explosive substance an explosion of a nature likely to endanger life or to
cause serious injury to property shall, whether any injury to person or
property has been actually caused or not, be guilty of an indictable offence,
and shall be liable to level 4 imprisonment (15 years maximum).

(3) Any person who unlawfully and maliciously-

(a) does any act with intent to cause by an explosive substance or
conspires to cause by an explosive substance an explosion of a nature
likely to endanger life or to cause serious injury to property; or





(b) makes or has in his possession or under his control any
explosive substance with intent by means thereof to endanger life or
cause serious injury to property or to enable any other person by
means thereof to endanger life or cause serious injury to property-

shall, whether any explosion does or does not take place and whether any
injury to person or property has been actually caused or not, be guilty of an
indictable offence, and shall be liable to level 5 imprisonment (10 years
maximum).

(4) Any person who makes or knowingly has in his possession or under his
control any explosive substance, under such circumstances as to give rise to a
reasonable suspicion that he is not making it or does not have it in his
possession or under his control for a lawful object shall, unless he can show
that he made it or had it in his possession or under his control for a lawful
object, be guilty of an indictable offence, and shall be liable to level 6
imprisonment (5 years maximum).

(5) Any person who by the supply of or solicitation for money, the providing
of premises, the supply of materials, or in any manner whatsoever knowingly
procures counsels aids abets or is accessory to the commission of any crime
under this Division shall be guilty of an indictable offence, and shall be
liable to be tried and punished for that crime as if he had been guilty as a
principal.



* * * * *



(7) In any presentment the same criminal act may be charged in different
counts as constituting different crimes under this Division, and upon the
trial of any such presentment the prosecution shall not be put to its election
as to the count on which it must proceed.

(8) This Division shall not exempt any person from any indictment presentment
or proceeding for a crime or offence which is punishable at common law or by
any enactment other than this Division but no person shall be punished twice
for the same criminal act.

(9) (a) If a magistrate is satisfied by the evidence on oath or by affidavit of any member of the police force above the rank of senior sergeant authorized in writing by the Chief Commissioner of Police (whether generally or in any particular case) in that behalf that there is reasonable ground for suspecting that an offence under this Division has been, is being, or is about to be committed he may grant a search warrant authorizing any member of the police force named therein to enter at any time any premises or place mentioned in the warrant, if necessary by force, and to search the premises or place and every person found therein, and to seize and detain any explosive substance which he finds on the premises or place, or on any such person, in respect of which or in connexion with which he has reasonable grounds for suspecting that an offence under this Division has been, is being, or is about to be committed.

(b) The member of the police force making the search may arrest without
warrant any person found on the premises whom he has reason to believe
to be guilty of an offence under this Division.

(c) Save as aforesaid the rules to be observed with regard to search
warrants mentioned in the Magistrates' Court Act 1989 shall extend and
apply to warrants under this section.

(d) The provisions of this section shall be read and construed as in aid
and not in derogation of the provisions with regard to warrants to
search contained in the said Act or elsewhere25.

15 years maximum! :eek:.

[Hobbit Porn]

C.tech : you might want to to double check by trying to check the legislation through the victorian government website. Austlii have been known to be a bit lax with updating amendments to legislation.
I have no idea if this is the case here, but it is better to be safe then sorry.