A FORMER British undercover policeman who abducted his children from
Australia to Britain has won the latest round of an international custody
battle with his estranged wife despite a UK High Court judge saying he had
behaved in a "blatant and disgraceful way".
The man - who cannot be identified for legal reasons - wrongfully
removed the children from Australia to the UK in breach of his wife's custody
rights, the High Court was told. But Justice Jonathan Baker refused to order
the children's "summary return" to their mother in Australia
following hearings in the Family Division of the High Court. The judge said the
children might be at risk, because of the nature of the father's previous work,
if immediately returned. And he said one child had a "clear and
unequivocal objection" to returning to Australia and should not be
immediately returned because of that. The judge added that the three children
should not be separated and, if one was staying in the UK, they should all
remain.
But Justice Baker said his decision was not necessarily the "end of
the matter". The judge said any further litigation would be conducted in a
British court. Detail of the case emerged in a written ruling by Justice Baker
published on a legal website. Justice Baker said it was right to describe the
case as "a particularly flagrant example of a wrongful removal". "(The
man) accepts that he willfully removed the children without (their mother's)
consent in breach of her rights of custody as defined under (international
law)," said the judge. "The father abducted the children in a planned
and calculating way, without, it must be said, having any proper regard to
their safety, given the dangers that exist as a result of his past
employment." But the judge said the man had, nevertheless, argued against
the "summary" return of the children..
Justice Baker said the man had worked for a police force, identified in
the ruling as "Z Police Force", and had been relocated to Australia
some years ago. He said he heard evidence from a senior police officer about
the man's work. "(The senior officer's evidence) is to the effect that
over the years (the man) has been deployed into situations in which he has come
into contact with hundreds of criminals involved in serious organised
crime," said the judge. "The first defence, advanced with the full
support of the Z Police Force, is that a summary return would place the three
children at grave risk of harm, or otherwise put them in an intolerable
situation, because (the man) has been employed as an undercover police officer
for many years and, after being relocated in Australia a few years ago,
circumstances have now arisen which render it unsafe for him or his family to
return to Australia, at least until extensive further work has been carried out
by the Z Police Force and their Australian counterparts, including a detailed
and thorough risk assessment."
Justice Baker said the man's wife had argued that the risk to the family
was no greater in Australia than in the UK. And she said the assessment of risk
to the children should be a matter for the Australian courts. But the judge
ruled in favour of the man and said he had "established a defence". The
judge added: "I find that to return the children to Australia, and in
particular to the same part of that country as before, would put them in an
intolerable situation where the risk of harm could not be safely or effectively
understood or managed." And the judge said he accepted that one of the
children did not want to go back to Australia.
Source: news.com.au
Please share
No comments:
Post a Comment