Keyet and Keyet (No 2)

[2013] FamCA 1157

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA

KEYET & KEYET (NO. 2) [2013] FamCA 1157

FAMILY LAW – NULLITY – Marriage previously declared null and void – husband still legally married at time of marriage to applicant – whether the matter should be referred to the Australian Federal Police – Australian Federal Police have advised they will not pursue the matter further.

Family Law Act 1975 (Cth)

Marriage Act 1961 (Cth) s 94(1)

APPLICANT: Ms Keyet

RESPONDENT: Mr Keyet

FILE NUMBER: MLC 9975 of 2012

DATE DELIVERED: 12 April 2013

PLACE DELIVERED: Melbourne

PLACE HEARD: Melbourne

JUDGMENT OF: Macmillan J

HEARING DATE: 12 April 2013

REPRESENTATION

COUNSEL FOR THE APPLICANT: No appearance

SOLICITOR FOR THE APPLICANT: Victoria Legal Aid

THE RESPONDENT: No appearance

ORDERS

IT IS ORDERED THAT

1. The Initiating Application filed 31 October 2012 be otherwise dismissed and removed from the list of cases awaiting hearing.

IT IS NOTED that publication of this judgment by this Court under the pseudonym Keyet & Keyet (No 2) has been approved by the Chief Justice pursuant to s 121(9)(g) of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth).

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA AT MELBOURNE

FILE NUMBER: MLC 9975 of 2012

Ms Keyet

Applicant

And

Mr Keyet

Respondent

REASONS

1. On 8 February 2013 I declared the marriage between the applicant and the respondent solemnised in 2009 null and void.  In my reasons for judgment I made note of the fact that I had been advised that prior to the hearing before me the applicant had contacted the Australian Federal Police who had advised her to contact them again following the hearing that day of the outcome of her application and on that basis I adjourned the matter for mention before me as a part-heard matter.

2. The applicant has requested that she not be required to appear on the basis that she filed an affidavit in relation to her further contact with the Australian Federal Police. I have acceded to her request. I now have before me her Affidavit sworn 12 March 2013 and filed on 13 March 2013 in which she deposes that following the hearing before me on 8 February 2013 she emailed the Australian Federal Police with respect to the outcome of her application advising them that the marriage had been declared null and void on the basis that at the time of the marriage the husband was, in fact, still legally married, that marriage having taken place in 1993.

3. She advised that the Australian Federal Police had responded by email asking her for a copy of the reasons for judgment and as she was not sure that she could send those reasons for judgment, she has not done so.  She did, however, on 28 February 2012 receive a letter from Mr C, a Federal Agent in the Australian Federal Police Office in Darwin, advising that the matter had been assessed by the Darwin Office Operations Committee on 28 February 2013 and that, notwithstanding that there may be prima facie evidence to substantiate an offence having been committed, the Committee in reaching their decision had taken into account the Australian Federal Police’s Case Prioritisation Model, details of the referral, and the public interest in proceeding further with the matter. Mr C, in his letter, also said as follows:

   The AFP has the primary law enforcement responsibility for investigating criminal offences against Commonwealth laws.  When considering a matter for investigation the AFP is required to prioritise referrals and investigations.  Taking this into account and in correlation with all the information provided to the AFP, the Darwin Operations Committee has not accepted this matter for further investigation.

4. It is clear from that letter that the Australian Federal Police do not intend to take the matter any further.

5. I have found that the respondent was still married at the time he purported to marry the applicant in this case. Pursuant to s 94(1) of the Marriage Act 1961 (Cth) that is an offence. I can, if I consider it appropriate to do so, refer the papers in this matter to the appropriate authorities, however whether I should do so depends upon the circumstances in each case having regard to the seriousness of the potential offence.

6. I am satisfied that the applicant has herself on more than one occasion brought this matter to the attention of the Australian Federal Police both before and after the marriage was declared null and void.  The Australian Federal Police have made it clear that they do not propose to take the matter any further.  There is no reason for me to conclude that the Australia Federal Police’s position with respect to this matter is likely to change.

7. In all of the circumstances I see little purpose would be served by my referring the papers in this matter to the appropriate authorities and, having declared the marriage null and void, I otherwise propose to dismiss the Application before me and remove it from the list of cases awaiting hearing. 

I certify that the preceding seven (7) paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for judgment of the Honourable Justice Macmillan delivered on 12 April 2013.

Associate: 

Date:  17 November 2014