A court has laid out the next move for a doctor and several co-accused alleged to have been involved in a child abduction ring.
A NSW doctor accused of being part of a child stealing network has defiantly claimed in court he and his co-accused “did not abduct anyone”.
Dr William Russell Pridgeon and Patrick Finbar McGarry O’Dea are two of seven people accused of being part of the syndicate, which police allege helped mothers abduct their children they claimed were being sexually abused by their fathers.
The pair and two other women – who cannot be named for legal reasons – are all facing charges of conspiring to defeat justice.
During a chaotic hearing on Monday, several supporters in the public gallery talked throughout proceedings – one holding up a sign that read “CORRUPT”.
Dr Pridgeon took issue with the wording of “abduction” in a copy of the prosecution’s statement of facts he had seen.
“I have the most profound objection to that, it implies a crime, infers a crime and wrongdoing,” he told Brisbane District Court.
“We did not abduct anyone.”
Dr Pridgeon said he was also seeking police records related to the alleged abuse of children connected with the case.
But Judge Leanne Clare said this was not “relevant” to the allegation of whether he planned to defeat justice.
“The fathers are not on trial, you are on trial,” she said.
“What matters is what you knew, what you believed, and why.”
Judge Clare reiterated Dr Pridgeon and the other defendants had their chance to raise their issues with the case at a further hearing listed in a month.
The court was told Mr O’Dea, Dr Pridgeon and one of the women “fervently advocate the righteousness of their cause”.
“They are not lawyers and it is difficult for them to grasp points of law or fact that are adverse to them,” Judge Clare said.
Judge Clare said all three had made submissions to “free” themselves from prosecution.
She dismissed their applications, saying their assembled research in support was “artificially selective”.
“I do not say that is a deliberate misrepresentation, but a continued misreading of the law feeds the defendants’ sense of persecution,” she said.
“Where there is a phrase or a portion of a section of an act of Parliament which in isolation might support their argument, they have tended to adopt it as confirmation the indictment is invalid or unlawful without considering the context or qualifying circumstance in the sentence.”
The court was told an affidavit submitted by Mr O’Dea’s “support person” Pastor Paul Burton had opined Mr O’Dea was not fit to plead to the indictment.
Judge Clare found otherwise, noting Mr O’Dea had shown his understanding in previous appearances and made oral and written submissions.
“I have no reason to question his capacity to plead,” she said.
Mr O’Dea also complained he was unable to get legal representation because his income had been “decimated” and could not obtain court documents contained on a USB.
A further trial review for the four defendants has been listed for May 12 before the matter proceeds to trial on May 22.