Prentice & Bellas and Anor
[2012] FamCA 108
•24 February 2012
FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA
PRENTICE & BELLAS AND ANOR [2012] FamCA 108
| FAMILY LAW – PUBLICATION – where part of parenting proceedings published on the internet – where prima facie case that there has been a breach of s 121 of the Family Law Act 1975 – where father sought order compelling an unjoined third party to remove the material from the internet – where the Court does not have the power to make the order sought by the father – where recommendation made to the Queensland Police Service and the Australian Federal Police to investigate whether a breach of s 121 has occurred and/or whether any other criminal offences have occurred. |
| Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) |
| APPLICANT: | Mr Prentice |
| 1st RESPONDENT: | Ms Bellas |
| 2nd RESPONDENT: | Ian Bruce Bell |
| INDEPENDENT CHILDREN’S LAWYER: | Ms Sheehey |
| FILE NUMBER: | BRC | 11565 | of | 2009 |
| DATE DELIVERED: | 24 February 2012 |
| PLACE DELIVERED: | Brisbane |
| PLACE HEARD: | Brisbane |
| JUDGMENT OF: | Murphy J |
| HEARING DATE: | 24 February 2012 |
REPRESENTATION
| THE APPLICANT: | In person |
| THE RESPONDENTS: | No appearance |
| SOLICITOR FOR THE INDEPENDENT CHILDREN'S LAWYER: | Rhonda Sheehy & Associates |
Orders
IT IS ORDERED THAT
The Application in a Case filed by the father on 19 December 2011 be dismissed.
All outstanding applications or cross-applications be dismissed.
The Independent Children's Lawyer be discharged as and from today.
IT IS DIRECTED THAT
The Marshal of this Court take all such steps as might be required so as to ensure that any breach of section 121 of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) (“the Act”) revealed by the material specified in the succeeding paragraphs of these Orders is investigated fully and, if appropriate, thereafter prosecuted.
IT IS RESPECTFULLY REQUESTED THAT
The Commissioner of the Queensland Police Service take all such steps as might be reasonably required to investigate whether any offence or offences, including but not limited to kidnapping of the child T PRENTICE born … July 1996, have been committed by:
a.The mother; and/or
b.Ian Bruce Bell; and/or
c.Any other person.
as revealed by, or indicated in, the documents authorised to be published by paragraph 7 of these Orders.
The Commissioner of the Australian Federal Police take all such steps as might be reasonably required to investigate whether any offence or offences, including but not limited to the indictable offence prescribed by s 121 of the Act in respect of proceedings involving or related to the child T PRENTICE born … July 1996, have been committed by:
a.The mother; and/or
b.Ian Bruce Bell; and/or
c.Any other person
as revealed by, or indicated in, the documents authorised to be published by paragraph 7 of these Orders.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT
Pursuant to s 121(9)(g) of the Act, an account of these proceedings, namely:
a.Exhibit ICL1 in these proceedings, being the statement of Ms M;
b.The affidavit of the mother filed 20 February 2012;
c.The affidavit of Ian Bruce Bell filed 20 February 2012;
d.The affidavit of the father filed 19 December 2011;
e.The affidavit of the father filed 24 February 2012;
f.These orders;
g.The Reasons for Judgment delivered today
be approved for publication to the Commissioner of the Queensland Police Service; the Commissioner of the Australian Federal Police and all such police officers and persons as each might reasonably permit or authorise.
The documents referred to at subparagraphs 7(f) and (g) of these Orders be sent by post by an officer of this Court to each of the First and Second Respondents at the address appearing on their respective affidavits filed 20 February 2012.
IT IS NOTED that publication of this judgment under the pseudonym Prentice & Bellas is approved pursuant to s 121(9)(g) of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth).
| FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA AT BRISBANE |
FILE NUMBER: BRC 11565 of 2009
| Mr Prentice |
Applicant
And
| Ms Bellas |
1st Respondent
And
| Ian Bruce Bell |
2nd Respondent
EX TEMPORE
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
The self-represented father of T Prentice (“the child”), born in July 1996, brings an application before the Court filed 19 December 2011 in which he seeks the following orders:
(1)Normal Court procedures be ABRIDGED so that immediate and URGENT action be taken in relation to this matter; (2) That IAN BRUCE BELL be compelled to immediately take down the “[title omitted]” website, or alternatively that IAN BRUCE BELL be compelled to IMMEDIATELY remove the offending material, detailed in the accompanying affidavit and annexures thereto from the subject website; (3) That consideration be given to the prosecution of IAN BRUCE BELL and [Ms BELLAS] [the mother] for their respective actions in relation to this matter.
That application is the latest in what can be seen to be about 14 years of litigation in this Court and the Federal Magistrates Court. The applicant father has final orders which, provide relevantly that the child live with him, since 2002.
In their most recent manifestation, these proceedings commenced with an application for a recovery order filed by the father on 17 December 2009. A number of orders to similar effect have been made, including Commonwealth information orders and location orders. The Australian Federal Police and the Queensland Police have, then, had prior involvement in this matter in various forms.
The child was ultimately returned to his father on 9 November 2011. It will be observed that the child will turn 16 in July of this year; that is to say in about four months’ time.
The father informs me today that the child is relaxed, happy and contented in his care since being returned after an extended period of absence in November 2011.
It is asserted by the father that the period of absence involved the child being kept in a locked shed with no access to telephones for a period of some months. He was denied contact with the father; that is, with the man who has had an order that the child reside with him for some 10 years.
The child ultimately returned to the father’s care when he telephoned the father and the father collected him on 9 November.
The current application, which occurs against that background, pertains to a website, the contents of which are exhibited to the father’s affidavit filed 19 December 2011.
This vile and offensive website is, it seems, referenced by accessing a site called “[title omitted]”. Access to that site reveals two items alleging judicial corruption.
The orders sought against Mr Bell can be seen to emanate from the fact that the same website reveals a postal address of …, and telephone numbers which are said to be the address and phone numbers of Mr Bell.
The latter article referred to in paragraph 9 contains a number of vile and baseless allegations. Examples of them include:
Deadly corruption in Australia. A 15-year-old boy, supported by the direct evidence of several other people, gave evidence to all relevant authorities that he has been horribly abused for all of his life and will be killed if dragged back to his father. Police found him, in hiding, yesterday. His life expectancy is now, perhaps, 48 hours.
The child referred to there is T Prentice, as the article further makes clear.
It might be specifically noted that the child is referred to by his correct name and age on that internet posting.
Prima facie, there is a flagrant breach of section 121 of the Family Law Act. Not only is there, prima facie, a flagrant breach of that section, but it is a breach of the most serious kind, as can be imagined, not least because it is a breach that suggests that “the boy is likely to be murdered within days and no authority is prepared to help”.
I am mentioned in that website as follows:
The DVD was placed into evidence before Family Court Judge Murphy in July 2011. Murphy stated in Court that he was making the order the father sought, to have [the child] forcibly returned by police. In his reasons for judgment (we have a copy) he refers to making the order, and gives so called “reasons” for doing so, but that order had been removed before the orders were published. It may be that Murphy later looked at the footage (transcript below) placed into evidence that day, after he dictated his “reasons” for making the order. In any event, a forged order of the same type, said to have been signed by a state magistrate, later surfaced and enabled police to take 15-year-old [T Prentice], last night, against his will, from where he has been in hiding for nearly a year, in fear of his life. [NOTE Police have failed to act on two informations given to them about forged court orders] ... [Parenthesis in original].
The allegations against the father border on the bizarre.
At this point I should indicate (as I referred to in my reasons for judgment in respect of orders made on 11 July 2011) that the initial trial Judge had at a trail in 2002, psychiatric evidence from Dr X. As I mentioned there, Dr X’s opinion given at that time (2002) is consistent with psychiatric opinions given by Professor N and Dr L later in proceedings.
Essentially, those opinions are that the mother suffered from a borderline personality disorder. It was said, for example:
Whether her belief that her children had been sexually abused by [the father] is part of a delusional disorder or a deeply held conviction is immaterial. The statements by [a named child] now that he is living with his mother, indicate that [the mother] is still firmly fixated on the idea that her children have been abused. She has only seen her children on three occasions in the last two and a half years. Around the same time that she first saw them after a break of two years, her oldest child made a statement to the police and the Department of Families reiterating her earlier concerns. At the second visit, she took [H] and [Y] in contravention of Family Court orders, and a woman whom [a named child] saw abuse her father. She went on to question [the named child] and possibly [another named child] about whether their father had been abusive of them ... as a result of [a named child’s] allegations, police and family services officers had once again interviewed [the named children].
Those comments were quoted in reasons for judgment delivered by the initial trial Judge on 21 June 2002. I repeat that the opinions there expressed by Dr X were confirmed subsequently by Professor N and Dr L, each of whom are also psychiatrists.
Against that background, the website includes allegations such as the following, which purports to be an “excerpt ... from an interview from a brother of the child’s. It was sworn as an affidavit and filed in Court in July 2011”:
I am, ... one three children from ... first marriage and I am now 23 years age. I’m here to talk about [the father] and what he does. I want the truth to come out as I am appalled that an Australian court of law could make a fresh order to force my little brother back into [the father’s] custody when it has the evidence of [the child T’s] interview, recorded with mine, in which [the child] names the atrocious things he has suffered at his father’s hands. I believe that if [the child] is found by the police and again dragged back to his father on a 13 year old Family Court order, which totally ignores his current evidence as a 14 year old, that [the child] is very likely to be killed – by [the father]. Why this is likely is because [the child] knows too much about [the father’s] many crimes, and [the father] is a totally unprincipled person who, to my knowledge, is, apart from what I detail here, a multiple murderer who will do anything to avoid going to jail.
...
... My younger half brother ... has confirmed [the father’s] involvement in what he says is Daniel Morcombe’s murder ...I repeat, some of the allegations on this website border on the bizarre.
That this heinous website is available on the internet is, of course, a matter of concern both to the father, understandably enough, and it also ought be a matter of concern to the broader public.
The other article referred to on that website … contains allegations which also border on the bizarre, makes allegations against two High Court justices, Kiefel and Bell. It is said that:
The Real Justice Lobby Group, last week, submitted for filing Constitutional writs against High Court judges Kiefel and Bell for their refusals to file such writs against corrupt Family Court judges and magistrates.
It seems that a summons was issued in the High Court of Australia directed to those two justices, and also to the father in these proceedings, so as to show cause why a writ of certiorari, an injunction and a writ of mandamus should not issue.
The orders sought include orders that “[a named child] be returned to a place of safety in the plaintiff father’s care (not the father in these proceedings).” A further order is sought to similar effect that the child be returned “to a place of safety in the plaintiff mother’s care ...”.
The affidavit accompanying that summons by the mother in these proceedings contains material which also borders on the bizarre. An example is:-
Due to unlawful break, enter and stealing activity in premises where some of my documents were stored, I do not presently have the written refusal to file by Kiefel J. A body of documents relevant to these and related proceedings was stolen ... My 15-year-old son, [the child T], fled his father’s household last February and has been in hiding for most of this year – some 10 months – in fear of his life. That is simply because his natural father knows what evidence of serious criminal offences, including murders, my son, [the child T] can give, and I verily believe that, after 10 years of marriage with this brutal man, I can validly form the opinion that he will kill our son if ever he finds him before he himself, [the father], is jailed.
I pause here to observe that the father has two adult children who are now each in their forties and has had the children of this relationship living with him for a period of some 10 years or more. There is no suggestion made by any of those children that anything untoward has ever been perpetrated by this father towards them, or anyone else of which they are aware.
The summons and affidavit to which I have referred names, and is deposed to by, the mother in these proceedings. The website to which I have just referred, includes, as I have indicated, reference to the respondent named in the application brought by the father before me.
It also includes references, which I understand are called “posts”, in these terms: “RJ will follow process to uncover a chronic corruption network this week ... wait, more from the desk of Mr Bell!”
The same “post” appears under the heading “Twits From RJ” in respect of the item about alleged corruption in the High Court.
The Independent Children’s Lawyer, who has been involved in these proceedings for a considerable period of time, sought and was granted leave to withdraw this morning. Prior to doing so, she put before the Court a Queensland Police Service statement obtained on subpoena from a witness, “[Ms M]”.
She is a journalist previously employed by a television network in Brisbane. She refers to a number of events occurring on and after 6 August 2011. In particular, she refers to taking “Bruce Bell” with her on a network helicopter, having been told by Mr Bell:
[about] “the history of [the child] and allegations of sexual abuse by his father. He wanted to give me copies of a DVD and documents, but I explained that if this story was to go anywhere, we needed to speak with [the child]. There are a number of calls backwards and forwards between myself and Bell. I hung up on him a couple of times as I had other things to do and he was wasting my time”.
Later, Bell and the journalist travelled in the network helicopter, according to the statement, to a football field in a south east Queensland town, G. Ms M states:
It was clear to me that Bell was in charge of meeting with [the child] and that he was working with someone to make it happen.
Upon landing in [G] at 1.10 pm and alighting from the helicopter, Bell has made a phone call from his mobile phone. I recall him saying words to the effect, “I am just watching a game of … football”. I thought this odd as there was no football game going on around us. We had actually landed in the middle of the field. It was then I realised we had landed on a [G] … football field oval. I asked Bell why he said he was watching a … football game. He stated words to the effect, “You have to be careful of what you say over the phone”. The park was on the left side of the highway as you travel north, near the centre of [G].
...
I was setting up with the cameraman and I recall Bell saying he wanted a non-descript background so the location could not be identified. He was saying words to the effect that if people knew where he was, [the child] would not be safe. He checked the background for the camera shot and was satisfied with the aspect.
... as best I can recall, about 10 minutes after we landed, the person I now know as [the child, T Prentice] arrived alone from the direction of the highway. I had a conversation with him and recorded and interview with him. He appeared to be in good health. I recall he told me he was living just outside of town but fairly close, it was “a bit rough” but okay.
Prior to us starting recording, Bell had a conversation with [the child]. I did not hear what was said. In my view, Bell controlled the interview and it was clear to me that Bell was pushing his own agenda of allegations against [the child’s] father. At one time, when we paused the interview, Bell was prompting [the child] with what to say. Bell prompted [the child] to talk about violence and sexual (sic) that he had experienced. We would not have put any of those sort of allegations go to air.
...
At the conclusion of the interview, I recall asking [the child] if there was some way of contacting him. [The child] looked straight at Bell. He turned to me and said that if I wanted to speak with him, I should talk to Bell. I recall [the child] saying that he could not make phone calls.
...
I’m aware that [the television network] has supplied the Queensland Police Service with a copy of the raw footage from my meeting with [the child]. I have viewed this footage and I’m satisfied it’s an accurate recording of the majority of the meeting with [the child] at [G] on Sunday, 7 August 2011 ...
The seriousness of the conduct evident from the extracts from the websites to which I have just referred, together with the information contained in the statement from which I have just quoted extensively (in circumstances where an order of the Court made in 2002 and a series of location orders and Commonwealth information orders have been made), cannot, of course, be overstated.
If conduct is revealed which is contemptuous and in flagrant disregard of earlier court orders made for the child’s location and recovery, then, plainly, that is conduct of the most serious kind.
It may also be conduct constituting a criminal offence in Queensland of kidnapping. It might also be conduct that forms the foundation of other serious criminal offences.
The application filed by the father seeks orders beyond the jurisdiction of this Court. The application and affidavit were served on both the mother and Mr Bell. Each have filed affidavits on 20 and 24 February 2012 respectively. Neither of them appear this morning. Plainly each is aware of the application this morning.
Mr Bell’s affidavit is short and I propose to quote it in full:
(1)I am not a party to these proceedings;
(2)I confirm that [the mother] does not have any knowledge about or control over the website [the father] is concerned about;
(3)I do not have any personal capacity to alter the content of or knowledge as to who now controls said website, other than that it is now controlled by a consortium of overseas individuals who are also concerned about courts, assisted by relevant government agencies in various countries acting illegally to place children into sexual slavery;
(4)In any event this application of [the father’s] is ultra vires this Court and should be dismisses. If [the father] wishes to proceed with defamation in an appropriate court then he of course may do so but a jury would not be impressed with the facts arising to justify whatever it may be that he claims he is aggrieved about.
The mother’s affidavit can be seen to repeat much of the material that formed the basis of earlier material filed by her in these proceedings. Indeed, it might be seen to mirror some of the material contained on the websites to which I have just referred. For example, the mother deposes:
Later the nefarious Mr [Prentice] managed to get a state magistrate in Queensland (or someone else purporting to be) to forge two court orders – the one comparable to the order Murphy J made on 11 July last year and then removed from the record, and another which a federal magistrate in … on 19 June last year refused to make in the face of my evidence. In that case a forged order of the exact kind refused surfaced in the hands of the Australian Federal and Queensland Police the next morning, causing the national publication of the identity of my son, [the child T], being spread around the whole country in the media.
(6) In doing this, [the father] has clearly been involved in the criminal forgery of a court order and also breached the relevant “secrecy” provision in the Family Law Act and if necessary I shall ensure that he is penalised for both.
It will be appreciated that the mother there alleges improper (and perhaps corrupt) activity, both by myself (in apparently purporting to remove a matter from the court record) and improper, or perhaps corrupt, behaviour by a State magistrate in somehow apparently forging two court orders.
To the extent that the affidavit might be seen to address the application brought by the father, the following appears to be relevant:
(7) If [the father] has a grievance with the truth being told and still wishes to prevail upon this Court to help him suppress the truth about his criminal debauchery, then the following is the case: (a) this application is brought in abuse of process. It is the wrong court and his motivation is for the wrong reason – wishing to escape criminal prosecution is not a proper reason to approach this Court, which must refuse any such application in any event: (b) this Court has no jurisdiction to make the orders he seeks and must simply dismiss the application filed on 19 December 2011; (c) I know nothing about the matter [the father] complains of in relation to the above application. I have no knowledge or control over the website he complains and I do not know who does; (d) if this Court dates to try to punish me for what aggrieves [the father], then I shall ensure that he is criminally prosecuted as he long ago should have been. In fact, the only proper and responsible thing this Court can do is refer my evidence to the police for the long overdue prosecution coming to [the father] who has committed a great many well-evidenced crimes against children – both mine and other people’s.
It seems that among the many sins alleged to have been committed by the father, is the murder of Daniel Morcombe. I note that a person is currently awaiting trial for that murder.
This Court does not have jurisdiction or power to make an order that compels a third party to a matrimonial cause to do the things that the order seeks.
Further, as it seems to me, the Court does not have power to “give consideration to” the prosecution of the named individuals in relation to their respective actions. This Court has itself no prosecutorial power in the sense spoken of.
The Court does, of course, have power to punish for contempt if such a case is properly particularised and brought before it. The punishment in relation to contempt includes, of course, the power to jail in serious cases.
Accordingly, it is necessary for the Court to dismiss the Application in a Case brought by the father on 19 December 2011 and I shall so order.
However, I have traversed the matters that I have in some detail because neither this Court, or indeed any court, should fail to be troubled by what is said on the websites to which I have referred and the nature of the content.
Moreover, the statement apparently given to the police by a television network reporter is of itself profoundly disturbing in circumstances where it is asserted that the conversation and subsequent visit with the child via helicopter, which, according to the statement, occurred with Mr Bruce Bell, took place in August 2011.
It is profoundly disturbing because at that time the father had an order that the child live with him and that order had not been altered by any other court order and, on 20 January 2010 Bell J had made a recovery order for the recovery of the child in respect of the holding over of him by the mother.
As has also been pointed out, on 11 July 2011 I made orders at a time when the mother appeared before me representing herself, which included a location order for the child.
That order, in terms, required the mother to provide as soon as practicable any information which she had or may have in relation to the present location, or likely whereabouts, of the child. The mother made it plain on that occasion that she did not know of the child’s whereabouts.
I said in the reasons given on that day: “The mother adamantly says that she does not know where [the child] is, but she says she has spoken to him, and, I gather, seen him on a couple of occasions.”
On that occasion, the father submitted that it was: “… extremely unlikely that the mother did not know [the child’s] current whereabouts.”
The evidence before me reveals, at the very least, a strong prima facie case of a very serious breach of s 121 of the Act.
Whilst the father’s application must, in terms, be dismissed, it seems to me that in doing so, I should respectfully direct that the Marshal of this Court take all such steps as are reasonably available so as to ensure that any breach of s 121 of the Act is investigated fully and, if established, prosecuted.
Secondly, the facts and circumstances in this case give rise to the possibility that very serious criminal offenses have been committed.
Not the least of those criminal offences is the possibility that the child was, in fact, kidnapped. There are a number of other offenses potentially pertaining to the circumstances outlined by the father, and, indeed, by the mother in her affidavit.
I propose to respectfully request that the officers of the Queensland Police Services take such all such steps as might be reasonably available to them so as to investigate whether any criminal offenses, pursuant to the Queensland Criminal Code, have been committed by: (a) the mother, (b) Ian Bruce Bell, or (c) any other person.
In that respect, I do not, of course, suggest any disrespect in respect of investigations that are currently on foot (noting that a statement has been given by Ms M to which I have previously referred).
The position with respect to any outstanding parenting applications is, to say the very least, extremely confused.
It does not seem to me, from a perusal of the file, that there are any outstanding applications or cross-applications for parenting orders in respect of the child. I note that by the time any application for any parenting orders, whether previously filed or subsequently filed, will be heard, the child will almost certainly have turned 16, or be very close to it.
In those circumstances, and so as to ensure that the file is appropriately dealt with and that the principles referred to in section 69ZN of the Act and, in particular, the first and seventh principles contained in that section, at, respectively, section 69ZN(3) and section 69ZN(7), and the duties cast upon the Court mandatorily by section 69ZQ of the Act are complied with, I propose to order that any outstanding applications or cross-applications for parenting orders be dismissed.
I certify that the preceding sixty-two (62) paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for judgment of the Honourable Justice Murphy delivered on 24 February 2012.
Associate:
Date: 8 March 2012
6
0
1