When 'Rule of Law' Becomes 'Rule of Convenient Absurdity'
One might wonder why it takes an Attorney General's 'mercy' to correct what was, by any reasonable standard, an obvious and documented child protection failure. This isn't a case of unforeseen error; it's a decade of policy-driven indifference dressed up as legal complexity. Let's unpack the selective application of justice, shall we? CASE A: The Indonesian Children (2010-2012 / 2026 'Mercy')
Here, the narrative is 'mistakes were made,' and now, finally, 'justice is being served.' The Guardian reports that two boys, 'both aged 15,' were among 'hundreds of Indonesian children' 'wrongly deemed adult people smugglers by Australian police' and sent to 'adult maximum-security jails.' The article notes they were 'quietly released and sent back to Indonesia.' This framing suggests a
regrettable, albeit isolated, incident, now valiantly corrected. The Framing: "The federal attorney general has used her mercy powers to pave the way for two Indonesian children to overturn a shocking miscarriage of justice." (Guardian World, 2026) The Reality: By 'shocking miscarriage of justice,' one must assume they mean a systemic failure that saw children as young as 13 imprisoned with
adults, often for years, based on dubious wrist x-rays and a wilful disregard for their stated ages. A 2013 review by former federal court judge Alastair Nicholson found 'significant deficiencies' in age assessment procedures and recommended independent oversight, recommendations largely ignored for years (Australian Parliament, 2013). This wasn't a clerical error; it was a policy choice. CASE B: