On 8 October, prosecutors withdrew all charges against a 12-year-old boy accused of involvement in the violent group attack that preceded the death of Melbourne grocer Van Viet Truong. The reason? Under Victorian law, children aged 12 and 13 are presumed not to be criminally responsible unless prosecutors can prove they understood their actions were seriously wrong in a moral sense.
Think about that for a moment.
Van Viet Truong was 60 years old. A husband, father, grandfather and hardworking small business owner who had spent almost three decades running his grocery store in Sunshine, Victoria. In August, he reportedly stepped in to help another retailer during an alleged theft. He was attacked, suffered catastrophic head injuries and died in hospital days later.
A man who went to work that morning never came home. His family lost someone they loved, his community lost a familiar face, and an ordinary act of helping another person ended in tragedy.
Now, just two months later, one of the children accused of participating in the violence has had every charge against him withdrawn because prosecutors could not establish the level of criminal responsibility required under the law. His lawyer described his alleged involvement as secondary, and the court made no finding that he committed the offences.
This raises a difficult question for the Victorian Government: when a child is accused of involvement in violence this serious, what does meaningful accountability actually look like?
Most parents have had a conversation with a young child about right and wrong. Imagine a six-year-old hitting the family dog. You ask why they did it. They shrug their shoulders and say they don't know. You ask whether they knew hitting the dog was wrong. They say yes. You tell them not to do it again, explain why, and make sure they understand there are consequences for hurting another living thing.
It's a simple example, but it raises a point worth discussing. Children can understand that hurting someone is wrong long before they turn 14.
Of course, knowing that hitting a dog is wrong is not the same legal test as proving a child understood the serious moral wrongfulness of particular criminal conduct. The law deliberately sets a higher threshold. But should that threshold operate in the same way when the alleged violence has contributed to a person's death?
This is where Victoria's much-publicised approach to youth crime deserves scrutiny.
The public has heard plenty about tougher consequences for serious young offenders, including the slogan 'Adult Crime, For Violent Crime.' But slogans do not answer the questions raised by cases like this one. How does that tougher approach interact with the legal protections for children under 14? What options remain when prosecutors cannot establish criminal responsibility? And what practical interventions are available to protect the community and prevent further violence?
The Victorian Government raised the minimum age of criminal responsibility from 10 to 12 and strengthened the presumption protecting 12- and 13-year-olds under its Youth Justice Act 2024. The government argues that children's developmental maturity must be considered and that young offenders should receive appropriate intervention rather than automatically entering the criminal justice system.
What happened to Van Viet Truong should force a serious examination of whether Victoria has struck the right balance. The case has not ended altogether. A 15-year-old remains charged with manslaughter, and two 14-year-old girls face other charges.
The withdrawal of charges against the 12-year-old should not mean the broader questions simply disappear.
What intervention, if any, follows when serious charges are withdrawn because of a child's age and legal capacity? Who assesses the risk of further violence? What support is offered to the victim's family? And how does the government measure whether its approach is actually making communities safer?
These are questions that deserve clear, public answers, not another round of political slogans, particularly with a looming State election.
There is also a longer-term concern. If young people repeatedly encounter violence without effective intervention, the consequences can extend well beyond any single incident. The aim should be to interrupt dangerous behaviour early, not wait until someone is seriously injured or killed before recognising the seriousness of the problem.
And while politicians debate legal thresholds, community safety and rehabilitation, Van Viet Truong's family must live with the consequences of what happened. He was not looking for trouble. He was helping someone. His life should not be reduced to another headline in an ongoing argument about youth crime.
The Victorian Government has a responsibility to explain how its laws protect children, hold young offenders accountable where legally appropriate, support victims and safeguard the wider community.
Since November 2025, Victorians heard the Labor Government repeatedly promise tougher consequences for serious youth offending under its much-publicised 'Adult Time for Violent Crime' laws. It has appeared in government media releases, parliamentary statements and repeated answers from the ex-Premier herself. Yet the legislation applies only to offenders aged 14 and over, leaving serious questions about how the justice system responds to younger children accused of participating in extreme violence. The question now is not how many times the government can repeat its slogan, but whether its laws deliver the accountability, early intervention and community protection Victorians have been promised.
Van Viet Truong deserved to make it home.
His family deserves answers.
