Source: https://www.incadat.com/en/case/996
Timestamp: 2019-04-19 14:24:05+00:00

Document:
Cannon v. Cannon  1 W.L.R. 32; Re H.B. (Abduction): Children's Objections)  1 FLR 39 &  1 FLR 422; T.B. v. J.B. (Abduction: Grave Risk of Harm)  2 FLR 515; Re T. (Abduction: Child's Objections to Return)  2 FLR 192; Re J. (Abduction: Child's Objections to Return)  2 FLR 64; W. v. W. 2004 SC 63; Ignaccolo-Zenide v. Romania (2001) 31 E.H.R.R. 7; Soucie v. Soucie 1995 S.C.134; Re M. and Another ((Children) Abduction: Rights of Custody)  3 W.L.R. 975; Re N. (Minors) (Abduction)  1 F.L.R. 413.
The application related to 3 children who were aged 15, 11, and 9 ½ at the date of the hearing. The parents had married in the UK in 1989. They remained there until 1994 whereupon they spent two years in Mexico, followed by two years travelling in the US.
In 1998 they returned to the UK for several months before moving to Spain, where they stayed until 2001. The stay in Spain ended when the parents separated, with the mother moving to France. The father moved to the same area and protracted litigation ensued over the care of the children. At trial and on appeal, the mother was designated as the primary carer, with the father having contact.
During a period of contact in July 2005 the father removed the children, via Switzerland, to south east Asia. After six months of travelling they settled in the Philippines where they remained until November 2006 whereupon they moved, undetected, to Scotland. In the autumn of 2007 the mother learned of the location of the children and initiated return proceedings.
On 10 March 2008 the Outer House of the Court of Session ordered the return of the children. Lord Turnball found the removal to have been wrongful and that the children had not settled in their new environment whilst the objectives of the older children were not of the requisite standard to justify a non-return order being made. The father appealed.
A curator ad litem was appointed to represent the interests of the 3 children. Prior to the trial the curator advised the court that she did not support the father's appeal. On 20 November 2006, at the Criminal Court in St Etienne, the father had been convicted in his absence of a violation of Article 227 of the French Penal Code in respect of the non-return of the children following a period when they were visiting him under the terms of a court order. He was sentenced to a period of 30 months imprisonment.
In parallel to the Hague Convention proceedings, proceedings were being conducted for the father's extradition to France pursuant to a European arrest warrant. On 9 May 2008 the father's bail was withdrawn and he was remanded in custody.
Appeal dismissed and return ordered; the removal had been wrongful and none of the exceptions had been proved to the standard required under the Convention.
The Inner House noted that submissions which in essence sought to argue that a return would not be in the best interests of the children, were out of place in Convention proceedings. The aim of the Convention was not to determine where the children's best interests lay, but to ensure that children were returned to the country of their habitual residence for their future to be decided there.
Arguments that the French courts were incapable of making a proper determination on such matters were rejected. The Inner House affirmed: "The policy of the Hague Convention reflects the fact that the acceding States regard the Courts of the other acceding States as capable of making proper determinations of the kind which we have outlined. Were that not so, the whole machinery of the Convention would be unworkable."
The Inner House upheld the conclusion of the trial judge to not give effect to the objections of the two older children.
The Court confirmed its existing position that there was a substantial onus on a party who contended that settlement had occurred.
The father had been legally represented for the first instance proceedings, but he then dispensed with his legal team, having been dissatisfied with their performance. He argued that the legal team had been negligent and this sufficed as a basis to allow the appeal. As an alternative he asked that the appeal be adjourned to allow him to appoint new representatives.
The father further submitted that following his remand into prison he had had insufficient access to the papers in the case and that this did not accord with the requirement that there be an equality of arms in terms of Art 6 ECHR.
The Court noted that pursuant to the Brussels II a Regulation there was a requirement to act expeditiously in Hague Convention proceedings and that an adjournment would likely cause substantial delay. Moreover, there was no guarantee the father would be successful in finding representatives who would be able to support his appeal.
He had indeed had a significant period of time in which he could have done so. The Court also noted that the father had been able to advance submissions and other material in support of his appeal and that he had been accorded additional time in which to present his case.
In light of these circumstances, the Court ruled that the father had been accorded a fair hearing; he may not have been able to focus his submissions in the way a professional lawyer would have done, but he had had every opportunity to address the issues which had arisen in connection with his appeal.
On 29 August 2008 the extradition of the father was ordered, see: EXTRADITION REQUEST, by THE REPUBLIC OF FRANCE Public Ministry of Saint-Etienne High Court ("Tribunal de Grande Instance") in respect of N. C., Case reference No 2B 920/2007, Edinburgh Sheriff Court.
Therefore, in terms of section 21 (3) of the Extradition Act 2003, Orders N. C. to be extradited to the Republic of France, being the category 1 territory in which said European Arrest warrant was issued.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 Art 6