The respondent mother abducted her three children and fled to Mexico, fearing she would lose all access to them at an upcoming custody hearing.
She was acquitted at trial of abduction in contravention of a custody order after the trial judge left the statutory defence of necessity to the jury.
The Crown appealed.
The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal and ordered a new trial, finding there was no air of reality to the necessity defence because the anticipated loss of access through a lawful court order did not constitute 'imminent harm' and the respondent had reasonable legal alternatives available.
