[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]
	England and Wales Court of Appeal (Civil Division) Decisions
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> England and Wales Court of Appeal (Civil Division) Decisions >> Render v Former Commonwealth Police Commissioner (Whitrod) [2004] EWCA Civ 1768 (23 November 2004) URL: http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2004/1768.html Cite as: [2004] EWCA Civ 1768

[New search] [Printable RTF version] [Help]

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF JUDICATURE
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL (CIVIL DIVISION)
ON APPEAL FROM THE HIGH COURT QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION
SITTING AT NEWCASTLE UPON TYNE DISTRICT REGISTRY
(HIS HONOUR JUDGE WALTON)

		Royal Courts of Justice Strand London, WC2
		23rd November 2004

Tuesday 23rd November 2004
1. SIR SWINTON THOMAS: This is an application by Mrs Karin Render for permission to appeal against an order made by His Honour Judge Walton in the Newcastle upon Tyne District Registry on 17th June 2004 when he ordered that her proceedings should remain struck out and refused permission to appeal from that order.
2. Mrs Render has described the defendant as the Commonwealth Police Commissioner, Raymond W Whitrod. He is said, by her, to be, or more probably to have been, the Commonwealth Police Commissioner in Australia. Mrs Render went from her native country, Germany, to live in Australia in the 1960s. The factual basis of her claim is set out succinctly by His Honour Judge Walton in paragraph 2 of his judgment. What the judge said was this:

"Essentially, all these cases have arisen out of events which Mrs Render alleges occurred in Australia in the mid 1960s. Summarising the position in very broad terms, she says that she was abducted by persons who she later found to be officers of the Australian police force and the Commonwealth Police Commissioner, Mr Whitrod; that she was the subject of a sexual assault, indeed a rape, by Mr Whitrod; that as a result she conceived twins; that she was forcibly aborted of the twins and thereby that, she would put it, Mr Whitrod was guilty not simply of rape but also of murder. Further, she alleges that she was prevented from properly articulating these claims in Australia. Quite the reverse: she was offered compensation by the Australian Government, which was never paid. Indeed proceedings were taken to deport her. Her case came before a panel of Judges of the High Court of Australia and a Deportation Order was made. She was prevented - again she believes by the influence of Mr Whitrod - from having legal representation at that hearing. That resulted in her having to leave Australia and subsequently, although she also has a connection with Germany, she came to this country."

The judge then went on to relate that there had been previous proceedings based on the same allegations which had been dismissed.

3. The judge dismissed this claim on 5th May 2004 on the papers on the basis that there was no reasonable ground for bringing the claim, or, alternatively, that the claim was an abuse of the court's process. Subsequently, as I have related, His Honour Judge Walton heard the applicant in person on an application to set aside that order which was refused.
4. There is no evidence before this court supporting the claims which concern events which happened now some 40 years ago. Perhaps more importantly, in the unlikely event that any claim could now be brought, it clearly cannot be brought in the courts of this country, but could only be pursued in the courts of Australia.
5. Mrs Render has addressed me this morning fully and succinctly and politely. She answers the point that I have just made by saying that the defendant is an employee of the Crown of the Commonwealth. If that should be right it still does not have the effect of making a crime or an assault committed by a person in Australia judiciable in the courts of this country. It is quite clear that if there is substance in the claims they must be heard in the courts of Australia.
6. Accordingly I have no doubt that the bringing of these proceedings in this country is an abuse process and that the application for permission to appeal must be refused.

ORDER: application refused.