To Prosecute Those Who Protect Kids, the AFP Breaks the Law

May 29, 2020 by Dee McLachlan

Original source:

(Photo: adapted by Gumshoe)

Where does one begin with this sorry saga of “child stealers”?

Readers should be familiar with the concept of the mainstream media (MSM) reporting the exact opposite of what is actually happening. When governments, authorities and/or the MSM point a finger at someone, they are often deflecting culpability from themselves.

And so it is in this case. Dr William Russell Pridgeon and others (Patrick O’Dea, a protective mother and some grandparents) have been called child snatchers. But it is the very people investigating and prosecuting this case that are in fact assisting and protecting the real child snatchers.

Let me try unpack a case of “child stealing.”

The case begins with a desperate mother, and how, several years ago, she tried everything to protect her two children. They had disclosed sexual abuse to her and also to a number of mandatory reporters (e.g., teachers). But however hard this protective mum and her professional supporters tried to get authorities to comply with the rule of law and investigate, she hit a brick wall.

I understand her situation, as I have been assisting more than one protective parent who are in almost identical straits.

Her two children were ordered to live with her ex-partner, and over a two year period the mum realised they were being sexually abused — repeatedly. (One can only wonder why the judge ignored all the evidence and returned the kids to their father.)

On the Run

With not a single person in authority willing to assist, the mum one day removed them from school and “went on the run.” Anyway, that is how the authorities and the mainstream media reported it. In fact, she was rescuing her children, and the law allows that. Section 70NAE of Australia’s Family Law Act 1975 clearly provides for a:

“reasonable excuse for contravening an order; (4)  A person is taken to have had a reasonable excuse for contravening a parenting order [putting the kid in a different home that the one on the order] …  if [the person] (a)  believed on reasonable grounds that the actions constituting the contravention were necessary to protect the health or safety of a person (including the respondent or the child)…” [Emphasis added]

The mother was acting within the law, protecting her children and herself. They went with her more than willingly, and I’ve heard her describe how seriously malnourished they were, and how, over time, they slowly began to heal from the infections and rectal bleeding.

She should have been provided every avenue and support to pursue s70NAE lawfully and to be heard in an equitable court. She had applied the law, whether she was at that moment aware of it or not. From her past dealings with the police and the Courts, she gauged, probably correctly, that she would stand no chance against the might of those in authority who had been protecting the children’s abuser. I can assure you the “system” is rigged.

Social Media

Some people writing on social media have attempted to diminish the disclosures by the children, but having personally read some of the documentation, one has to wrap one’s head around how so many mandatory reports (about 40) from over a dozen professionals had been cast aside. It beggars belief that authorities could disregard the children’s disclosures so brazenly.

It is crystal clear that certain persons in authority will go to extreme lengths – and even risk their careers — to keep “certain” child sex offenders safe from prosecution. (The corrupted powers above them must be extremely persuasive, or maybe they risk their careers if they don’t comply.) Because they have ignored this evidence, after being begged to intercede, they are also culpable, and now have a vested interestin suppressing the case.

The late Professor Freda Briggs, AO, had got involved early on and tried to assist this mum. The professor was Australia’s pre-eminent authority on child sexual abuse, and she provided clarity with regard to the subject, and had contacted Dr Pridgeon to assist (this before the mum picked up her kids).

Dr Russell Pridgeon

The doctor had graduated in 1980 from the University of Cape Town and had been a highly respected medical practitioner for 39 years. He had a practice in Grafton, NSW, and had become involved in Child Protection when trying to protect a child in his care. The child had also been ordered into unwanted contact with his father by the Family Court, despite the kid’s detailed and consistent disclosures of sexual abuse. This had enraged the doctor, who then founded the Australian Anti-paedophile Party (in conjunction with Patrick O’Dea) — this to contest the 2016 double dissolution elections, with the specific aim of exposing the criminal conduct that goes on in the Family Courts.

Prof Freda Briggs

When Professor Briggs asked him, as a doctor, to help, he found he could not ethically refuse.

A doctor has a much greater duty of care (i.e., Hippocratic Oath), and thus, Dr Pridgeon was forced to make an extremely difficult choice. He writes,

“I submit that my actions in protecting these children, were in the best and highest traditions of the Medical Profession, and as a moral man, I had no other choice …Nothing in my many years of medical practice had prepared me for the grief and horror of my conversations with [the mother] at this time.”

The Queensland Government and the “Trick”

Dr Pridgeon also wrote many letters to Diane Farmer, the Child Protection Minister for Queensland, but these went unanswered. Supporters of the mother wrote to the prime minister, the Attorney-general, and the Queensland Child Protection, but all failed to intervene and assist the children.

A complaint to the Crime and Misconduct Commission by Professor Briggs found that the Townsville police “conducted an inadequate and poor quality investigation with poor quality interviews.” There was never any attempt to reinvestigate the abuse, or challenge the Police assertion that the abuse was “unsubstantiated”.

This “trick” of non-investigation protects the abuser and enables the Court to say there has been no abuse. Also, when they are ordered back to the abuser, the children become isolated from protection and vulnerable to more abuse. The investigative agencies totally betrayed the children’s plight and their hard-given disclosures. Furthermore, the protective parent then gets accused either of malicious coaching or emotional abuse. The outcome: the removal of the children from the one person protecting them. Is this not insane?

Mother Arrested

The “arrival” of the “law”

After a few years this mother and her kids were “found” in 2018, and she was arrested.

Dr Pridgeon’s letters to the Qld Ministers of Child Safety and Police, and the Federal Attorney General on 30 June 2018 would have been passed on to the Australian Federal Police (AFP), as state border-crossing was involved. However, the AFP declined to act for another 5 1/2 months.

The rest is history. We reported on Dr Pridgeon, O’Dea and others at the time they were arrested in October 2018. The AFP had swung into action, with highly publicised arrests of the defendants in this case, and with every possible media in attendance, they swooped in. The doctor and O’Dea were jailed for four days.

Clever Timing

The timing of his arrest could not have been more perfect. Dr Pridgeon was due to defend a defamation case a few days later. It was brought against him by the abuser of the child that was in his care. And this kid was about to testify against his father for his abuse in court, as part of the defense in the defamation case.

But now the kid was robbed of being able to testify in court against his abuser — as this was not in the secret Family Court, it was in open court. It seems every attempt was made to protect the abuser.

So as the arrest of Pridgeon nicely brought about an implosion of the defamation case, the voice of the child, and the medical board immediately removing the doctor’s license to practice without any basis of fact. Why would the AFP sided with a man that had a brief of evidence of allegations against him of Child Sexual Abuse?

Mainstream Media

The AFP obviously colluded with the mainstream media and orchestrated a nationwide smear campaign against the doctor and the other protectors. The press made out that the doctor was a king pin in a national and international child kidnapping ring, involving 1-200 children, and involving 30-40 child kidnappers – and that he, the doctor, was funding this with proceeds of crime.

It beggars belief to imagine the extraordinary lengths to which certain officials, and the media went to protect certain sexual abusers. These classic tactics of Character Assassination were used in a highly effective manner, with the usual misinformation, smearing, and public shaming via the pressitute media throughout Australia.

Who Is the Criminal?

One has to remember that it is not a crime in this country to protect children from harm, especially such terrible harm as child sexual abuse.

However, it is a crime to fail to protect children from harm (s286 QLD Criminal Code). And I guess in a normal equitable society, this mum would have been able to enact 70NAE lawfully – without hindrance, and let that be tested in an honest courtroom. In this case, though, the authorities chose instead to create a new legal precedent — breaking new legal ground — by criminalising the actions of protectors.

People in authority became abusers as they further enabled the ongoing harm of these children.

I have now worked out the carefully structured modus operandi operating within the loopholes of the law and between state and federal courts, and the suppression of evidence. Surely, the judges and magistrates know what’s going on?


With regard to charges against the doctor for example, the Stalking, Child Stealing, Conspiracy to defeat justice, and Dealing in proceeds of crime are so off the mark that any proper court would throw them out. The charge sheet only reflects 3 children. Who are the other countless kids that were “stolen”? The stalking charge was bogus. Not only had Pridgeon never threatened or even contacted the alleged victim, he was 300km away when the offence was supposed to have occurred. The CDPP (Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions) had sustained these charges for almost a year, in order to maintain onerous bail conditions, including a GPS ankle tracker on the doctor.

And then there’s the stealing charge. The Commonwealth Prosecutor is trying to lead charges that are state based, with the State prosecutor being AWOL. And how come child stealing charges were leveled at a grandmother when she had lawful custody of her grandson? Well, these charges were dropped, as were the Child Stealing charges against the protective mother. A mother cannot ‘steal’ her own children. Yet, even though the prosecution now acknowledge these children were not stolen, the doctor remains charged with 3 counts of Child Stealing.

This is clearly malicious.

The AFP’s Conundrum

Now interestingly, when the AFP raided Pridgeon, O’Dea and the others, computers were seized. On those computer was evidence regarding the mandatory reports, letters to the QLD Child Protection Minister, etc. All this suddenly became exculpatory evidence. The moment they seized the evidence, an obligation fell on prosecutors to consider the material on those computers.

The CDPP are presently fighting tooth and nail to prevent the evidence of the childrens’ abuse being brought before the court.  But the prosecutor is obliged by law to present all exculpatory evidence — whether it exonerates or incriminates the defendants. It appears that those accusing Pridgeon and O’Dea for “Conspiracy to defeat justice” are now the very perpetrators of that crime. They are caught in aconundrum. If they reveal the exculpatory evidence as they are supposed to, then authorities would be obliged to investigate the very persons the AFP officer are protecting.

That said, the worst part in all this is how authorities abandoned the children. And one has to ask: what is the purpose of this Australian Federal Police charade – a charade fully sanctioned and supported by all of the mainstream media in protecting a protection racket?

Original source:

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s