It has taken 16 months for even a modest sign of movement.

Sixteen months after a stranger poured scalding coffee over a nine-month-old baby in a Brisbane park, China's decision to send a working group to Australia marks the first tangible shift in a case constrained by overlapping legal systems, geopolitics and public pressure.

The attack shocked Australians and reverberated globally through social media, including in China, within hours.

The suspect left Australia before police could formally identify him, transforming what began as a violent assault into a complex international legal challenge.

China's ambassador to Australia, Xiao Qian, confirmed last week that a Chinese delegation would travel to Brisbane to engage directly with Australian authorities.

"We are serious in addressing this concern, and we're serious in taking the necessary actions," he said.

The team, Xiao said, would work with Australian police to establish what happened and discuss follow-up cooperation.

For the family, it offers cautious hope. For authorities, it represents a diplomatic opening. But the announcement does not alter the structural realities governing this case.

Canberra cannot compel Beijing to return the suspect. Without a binding extradition agreement, Australia has no legal mechanism to require China to surrender one of its citizens.

Cooperation, not extradition

Australia and China do not have an effective extradition treaty.

A framework negotiated more than a decade ago was never ratified by Australia's parliament and never entered into force. In practical terms, this makes extradition highly unlikely.

Under Chinese law criminal jurisdiction applies both territorially and based on nationality. If the suspect is a Chinese citizen, Chinese authorities consider the case within their legal authority even if the alleged offence occurred overseas.

"Generally speaking, Chinese authorities do not extradite suspects to the country where the crime occurred because China prioritises its own judicial sovereignty," said Zhang Dongshuo, a Beijing criminal lawyer specialising in cross-border cases.

For Australia the implication is clear. The prospect of the suspect standing trial in Brisbane is remote.

With extradition effectively unavailable the only viable pathway is international judicial assistance.

That process requires Australian authorities to submit a formal request through diplomatic channels, supported by detailed evidence that satisfies Chinese legal standards. China's willingness to act depends heavily on Australia's initiative and the strength of its documentation.

If China accepts the request the likely outcome would be a criminal investigation conducted entirely within China. Chinese police would lead the inquiry, prosecutors would assess charges, and any court proceedings would occur under Chinese law.

For the Brisbane family this means they cannot independently initiate proceedings or participate directly in the process. Their access to justice now depends on cooperation between governments.

Even if China proceeds transparency would be limited and victim involvement minimal.

Why progress is slow

It has taken so long in part because cross-border criminal cases are structurally difficult to advance.

Evidence gathered in Australia must be translated, verified and reformatted to meet Chinese procedural standards.

Witness statements may need to be retaken. Forensic material must move across legal systems that operate under different rules of admissibility.

Cases involving Chinese nationals accused of crimes overseas rarely progress without sustained diplomatic engagement and comprehensive documentation from the requesting country.

Australian police have also limited public disclosure, citing concerns that releasing operational details could compromise evidence collection or increase the risk of the suspect relocating again.

While professionally justified during an active investigation, this approach has left the process opaque to the public, unfolding largely through formal legal channels behind closed doors.

Against this backdrop Xiao's announcement matters. A Chinese working group travelling to Brisbane signals recognition of Australian concerns and establishes a structured pathway for engagement.

But it does not guarantee an outcome. Without an extradition treaty the most plausible scenario — if cooperation advances — is a prosecution conducted in China rather than a trial in Australia.

That would still represent accountability. It would also mean justice for an Australian child being delivered overseas.

Where the victim fits in

Sixteen months on, the case sits squarely at the intersection of law and diplomacy.

China has the legal authority to pursue the suspect under its nationality-based jurisdiction.

Australia has the responsibility to seek accountability on behalf of the child and the wider public.

Whether those interests converge will depend on sustained cooperation and Beijing's willingness to act.

If justice is delivered, it would signal China's readiness to address a serious overseas offence committed by one of its citizens — and demonstrate its capacity to enforce accountability beyond its borders.

Such an outcome would also serve Beijing's broader interest in rebuilding trust with the Australian public at a time when bilateral confidence remains fragile.

For Canberra, any progress will require careful navigation of a relationship Prime Minister Anthony Albanese has said is stabilising.

Justice here is not automatic. It must be negotiated. The working group creates a procedural pathway but it does not alter the legal constraints.

If Chinese authorities assume jurisdiction the Brisbane family would have no direct legal standing in the case.

The victim's parents cannot initiate proceedings themselves under China's legal system. Any prosecution would depend entirely on evidence submitted by Australian authorities through formal diplomatic channels.

Chinese police would lead the investigation. Prosecutors would determine charges. Any court process would unfold under Chinese law, far from the park where the attack occurred.

For the family, this means justice — if it comes — would be delivered overseas, with limited transparency and minimal opportunity for participation.

The shift in jurisdiction carries a quiet consequence: once a case crosses borders, victims lose agency.

Accountability becomes a matter of intergovernmental cooperation rather than individual legal rights.

Justice remains possible, but it will depend not on outrage, but on evidence, diplomacy and political will.

China has the authority to act. Australia has the responsibility to press. Whether that convergence delivers accountability now rests with Beijing. (ABC News)