R v Wal Wal Case: How Australian Law Deals with the Power of Group Violence
Cache of Weapons and Ammunitions siezed from UNMISS
By Bior Deng, Brisbane, Australia
Tuesday, 10 June 2025 (PW) – On a quiet afternoon in Zillmere, Brisbane, what should have been a peaceful sight at O’Callaghan Park turned into a scene of terror. Twelve men, armed with machetes, knives, and bats, launched a calculated assault on a rival group. The result was one young man, Girum Mekonnen murdered, several others seriously injured, and a nation left asking how group violence like this can be prevented.
The 2020 R v Wal Wal case is more than just a shocking story of a brutal retaliation ending with murder. It’s a compelling example in how Australian criminal law addresses the dangerous psychology of group mentality in crime. And more importantly, how this legal approach could serve as a model for other countries grappling with youth violence, gang activity, and revenge attacks.
Understanding the Case
The twelve assailants, among them Kresto Wal Wal, Gabreal Wal, and others, executed a planned attack on a rival group. Their actions were revenge for a prior assault on a brother and fellow group member of theirs, John Wal, who was left hospitalised after a brutal assault by the rival group. Some were getaway drivers. Most were active participants in the assault. Still, the law didn’t judge them as isolated individuals with different roles, instead judging them under the doctrine of joint criminal enterprise.
Under this doctrine, when a group of people set out to commit a crime together, they may all be held equally responsible, even if only a select few actively were the perpetrators. This means that if one person commits murder during a planned assault, all those who shared in the intent to carry out violence can be held equally as guilty of murder.
This is exactly what happened in the Wal Wal case. Despite the Crown not being able to identify who delivered the fatal blow to Girum Mekonnen, judge Justice Lincoln Crowley found 10 of the 12 men guilty of murder, ruling that the shared intent to commit a violent assault made them all responsible under the law.
Why This Matters
Group violence is not new. Whether it’s mob attacks, gang retaliation or orchestrated hate crimes. What makes such crimes especially dangerous is the destruction of individual responsibility. People feel emboldened when part of a group. They often do things they would never do alone.
Australian law, through cases like R v Wal Wal, sends a stern warning: being part of a group does not shield you from full accountability. And in the current age where more and more of our youth are being pulled to crime, this is a message becoming more and more important.
This legal framework breaks down the false security that individuals find in numbers. It targets the root of coordinated aggravated violence, not just the actions, but the shared intent that fuels it. It communicates to potential offenders that if they choose to join, plan, or support group violence, even from the sidelines, they will be held just as accountable as the ones committing the crimes.
A Global relevancy
In many countries such as South Sudan, the US and Canada, we struggle with rising gang violence, youth aggression, and communal retaliation. In some places, the law fails to address the collective picture of such crimes, leading to loopholes where only the person ‘caught with the weapon’ is prosecuted and judged.
But imagine applying the principles of joint criminal enterprise or extended joint liability in these contexts: a gang leader who sends others to attack can be charged equally; a getaway driver in a hate crime is as culpable as the attacker, and members who show up to support violence are liable, even without throwing a punch.
This isn’t just about being overly punitive. It’s about deterrence, justice and clarity. The more the law reflects the reality of how violent acts are planned, the more effective it becomes in the prevention of such acts. And our youth will be kept from crime keeping our community strong.
From Zillmere to the World
The R v Wal Wal case should not be seen as just another violent case in isolation. It is a landmark lesson in how legal systems around the world can adapt to counter the psychology of group-based crime that is heavily affecting our youth. Australia’s firm stance in this case shows that shared violence leads to shared accountability.
For countries dealing with spikes in coordinated criminal activity, especially among their youth and other groups, adapting similar legal doctrines could be the turning point. Not just in punishment, but in prevention.
As the world continues to battle the complexities of violent crime, cases like R v Wal Wal remind us: the law isn’t just about reacting appropriately to crime, it’s about shaping behaviour, breaking dangerous patterns, and upholding justice for all.
If you want to submit an opinion article, commentary, or news analysis, please email it to the editor: info@paanluelwel.com or paanluel2011@gmail.com. PaanLuel Wël Media (PW) website does reserve the right to edit or reject material before publication. Please include your full name, a short biography, email address, city, and the country you are writing from.
About Post Author
