Rapist Briton had tried to adopt children he later abused

Convicted paedophile Keith Morris tried to legally adopt some of the children he sexually molested, according to court documents The Standard has unearthed.

Morris and his alleged wife Julie Sharp lodged a Motion seeking legal custody of eight children from Maweni village after they reportedly reached an agreement with the minors’ parents.

During his trial in a UK court, which ended in conviction last week, the prosecution demonstrated that the 72-year-old pensioner befriended parents of the children he was later charged with molesting.

Legal guardianship

Records at a court in Kilifi show that Morris’ effort to secure legal guardianship of these children were thwarted by Kenyan officials, who doubted his marriage to Julie and also his motivation of seeking to take over the big number of children.

The doubts were worsened by the fact Morris could not demonstrate whether he and Julie intended to transfer the children to England or live with them in Kenya.

There was also suspicion that the consent by parents to free their children for adoption was procured through duress or money inducement.

The Standard has established that Morris lost the application at the Kilifi Law Courts on July 21 2016. On the day of the ruling, Morris told court he required a fast process because he was about to leave Kenya. “I have booked a return ticket and unless the court hears the application, I will not be around,” said Morris in the supposed urgent application.

Although the application was characterised as urgent, and lodged while Morris was armed with an air ticket, records show the convict did not leave Kenya until December 15, 2016.

Morris only left Kilifi after being tipped by some officials in the police department that an investigation had been launched against him and that he was about to be indicted for sexually abusing the children. He was arrested on arrival in England. British and Kenyan police officers had been after him.

Kilifi Resident Magistrate Leah Juma declined this application in a ruling made on July, 21, 2016. This was after a report by Ganze sub-county officer Daniel Mbogo showed there was no proof of marriage between the applicant and the woman accompanying him.

The report dated March 17, 2016, also showed the targeted children were not vulnerable and in need of guardianship as alleged by the applicant, who had come to court armed with consent letters from parents.

The applicant, according to the report, had not proved he could take care of these children and where he intended to live with them after adoption.

Records show Morris and Julie Sharp filed the application on February 11, 2016 through a lawyer, setting in motion a series of investigations by State agencies as required by law in adoption cases.

“The families show need of stability and are vulnerable because the conditions they live in are poor,” Morris said in his application, which also shows him alleging that most of the children had single parents, who were poor or earned low wages.

In the application, Morris and Julie claim they had lived in Kenya for about 25 years.

Assisting financially

“During the 25 years, my family and I have been to Kenya at least three to four times a year, not as tourists, but to see our family. We have been assisting the families financially and paid their hospital bills. We have had a good relationship with the local chief and a local school,” he said in the application.

The Standard has established that during his visit to Kenya, the parents allowed Morris to leave with their children in exchange for food, school fees and clothes.

Child rights groups and detectives showed during trial that most parents were paid to hush up molestation of their children. The police also ignored reports of sexual abuse presented to them.

The magistrate said notwithstanding the fact that the white couple had no biological links with the children, the court was under obligation to consider the religious, cultural and customary persuasion of the children before allowing adoption.

The magistrate also said the court was constrained to consider what harm would befall the children if the application was dismissed. The magistrate ruled: “There was no evidence by the applicant as to the wishes of the relatives of the children, wishes of the children themselves, customs of the community from which the children come from, their religious affiliation and the harm the child will suffer in the event the orders are not granted. It was up to the applicant to adduce this in court,” said Juma, adding: “The couple admitted that they are from UK. It was not clear where the children would reside if the orders were granted.”