Gold Coast family respond to bombshell Supreme Court ruling that could mean losing Molly the magpie again

The Queensland family responsible for internet sensation Molly the magpie has responded to a bombshell court ruling that could see the famous magpie removed from their home once again, saying they want to “enjoy the time we have together and let everything else go”.

Juliette Wells and Reece Mortensen obtained a special wildlife carer’s licence earlier this year in order to keep Molly, but that licence was overturned in court this week.

Wells and Mortensen rescued Molly when he — initially believed to be a she — fell from a nest in 2020.

Once recovered and released, the bird continued to live in their Gold Coast backyard, forming a relationship with their two dogs, Peggy and Ruby — which was documented on social media and in a book.

Molly’s unlikely friendship with the two Staffordshire terriers gained a large social media following of more than 980,000.

But after complaints the couple did not have the appropriate licences to look after Molly, they surrendered the magpie to Queensland wildlife authorities in March this year.

Amid mounting pressure from the public — and some politicians — the Department of the Environment, Tourism, Science and Innovation (DETSI) “approved a specialised licence” and returned Molly to Wells and Mortensen six weeks after the bird had been surrendered.

The department at the time said Molly was “highly habituated and may have developmental issues” and could “never be rehabilitated or returned to the wild”.

Wells and Mortensen were ordered to not make commercial gain from Molly, and to continue wildlife training and engage with the department to “ensure the bird is receiving adequate care and enrichment”.

The family has now addressed the court decision through social media.

“A big thank you for the outpouring of support and love as we face yet another bump in the road,” the family said on Instagram.

“Some anonymous people challenged DESI’s decision to grant us a specialised licence so Molly could come back to a family who love him in the Supreme Court yesterday.

“The outcome: The decision to grant us a specialised licence has been set aside and is of no effect. That also means that your application for a specialised licence made on 11 April 2024 remains undecided.

“What does that mean? We are not sure because we have not been advised of the next steps. We will keep you all updated as things unfold.

“In the meantime, let’s live in the moment and enjoy the time we have together and let everything else go.”

Legal firm XD Law & Advocacy sought a judicial review of the decision to grant the licence, on behalf of an unnamed wildlife volunteer representing a network of volunteers who work to care for injured and rescued birds.

Jack Vaughan from XD Law and Advocacy said the Supreme Court had overturned the granting of the specialised licence to Wells and Mortensen on Monday.

Vaughan said on X that the law firm took the case “when we saw volunteer wildlife carers being pilloried and abused for sticking up for the laws of Queensland preventing wildlife being turned into pets”.

The applicant said: “This action was not about one magpie — it was about reinforcing Queensland’s wildlife protection laws and the integrity of the wildlife licensing system.

“I am grateful to the Supreme Court and so proud of all the wildlife carers that stood up for the law when the department and the former premier failed to do so.

“We are the ones who deal with the wreckage of the social media fad of capturing baby magpies and training them to do cute tricks.

“There is nothing cute about wings and legs bitten off by family pets. There is nothing cute about seeing a domesticated magpie ferociously attacked by a wild flock when they first interact.

“We are not commenting at all on what should be done with Molly — we will not be exposing our members to that violence and abuse again.”

DETSI will now decide its next steps to take in regard to Molly.

“In trying to protect the welfare of the bird — which has always been our highest priority — we made an error, and we are currently considering next steps,” a spokesperson said in a statement after the court decision on Monday.