ISIS Brides/children rejected to return to Aus. by High Court, page-177

The parties and their causes of action

The applicants, Mrs Lorna Cubillo and Mr Peter Gunner were born in the Northern Territory, in 1938 and 1948 respectively. Both were removed from their Aboriginal families as young children. Mrs Cubillo was placed in the Retta Dixon Home in Darwin, operated by the inter-denominational Aborigines Inland Mission, where she remained until she was 18 years old. Peter Gunner was taken to St Mary’s Hostel in Alice Springs, operated by the Australian Board of Missions (an Anglican organisation), where he remained until he was 16 years old.

Both applicants received inadequate material and emotional care, and suffered incidents of physical and sexual abuse at the hands of mission employees. Mrs Cubillo suffered post-traumatic stress disorder and depression arising from her childhood experiences, and Mr Gunner suffered from a chronic dysthymic disorder or chronic depression from the time of his removal.

Mrs Cubillo and Mr Gunner commenced their proceedings separately, and subsequently consented to orders pursuant to s.44 of the Judiciary Act 1903 (Cth) that they be heard together. They alleged that their removal and detention by officers of the Commonwealth constituted wrongful imprisonment and deprivation of liberty, was in breach of fiduciary duties owed to them by the Commonwealth, was in breach of statutory duty, and was a breach of a common law duty of care.

The applicants pleaded that the Commonwealth was vicariously liable for the actions of its officers, the Director of Native Affairs and, later, the Director of Welfare (the Directors). Alternatively, they pleaded that the Commonwealth knowingly participated in or promoted breaches of duty by the Directors. The Commonwealth was the sole defendant.

The applicants sought general damages for their pain and suffering and for their loss of enjoyment of life. They claimed damages for the loss of the Aboriginal language, culture and way of life, and for loss of entitlements to land under the Aboriginal Land Rights (NT) Act 1976 (Cth). They also sought aggravated and exemplary damages for the Commonwealth’s ‘conscious and contumelious disregard’ for their interests.

Following an unsuccessful interlocutory application by the Commonwealth to move for the summary dismissal of both actions, the trial commenced before O’Loughlin J in August 1999. After a hearing that lasted 107 days, judgment was handed down on 11 August 2000. The applicants failed comprehensively in all their causes of action against the Commonwealth.

http://classic.austlii.edu.au/au/journals/AltLawJl/2001/7.html

but all you have is a denial that they were "stolen".

they were taken under law per the legislative requirement of the territory at the time. to the law they were removed. to the relatives, including siblings, they were stolen. more importantly, to the children they were stolen.

in this review of the case its clear these children were "stolen" in the vernacular adopted by Aboriginal people and accepted by the courts.

what you believe is peculiar to yourself. you choose to believe as you do for your own reasons. your beliefs have no bearing on whether these children were in fact stolen. it is and was at the time of these cases and the class action that succeeded consequently, that their removal was tantamount to being "stolen" by authorities.

so, in sum, you are spinning a lie based on your disbelief in the legally accepted fact that Aboriginal children were stolen. literally, actually and even legally.

in spinning your argument you have knocked yourself out o mendacious thicky.