PUBLISHER'S NOTE: Over the past 17 years I have written about many flawed pathologists beginning when I was at my desk at the Toronto Star and Charles Smith came into my life. Since then I have written about other pathologists in various parts of the world for their lack of qualifications, their incompetence and the harm they have caused to innocent men and women, their families, and their criminal justice systems. Over the years I have never seen a government which has protected them from scrutiny and accountability, as South Australia has protected, and continues to protect notorious former Chief Forensic Pathologist Colin Manock for example - even though they have been aware of the truth of his mountainous flaws for years (or should have known) - while people like Derek Bromley, whose innocence was clearly confirmed by science, remained in prison for years unprotected, by the law and the officials sworn to uphold it. Prosecutor's mislead judges about Manock's flaws, true twisted nature, tainted character, and wanting qualification year after year, long after they had been put on notice, and still will not admit in court, what they so clearly must affirm: 'That the conviction of Mr Bromley had been improperly obtained and that it should be overturned; Will that happen? I truly hope so. But don't hold your breath! It's hard to think that South Australia will abandon its hostility to fair trial and rectification of miscarriages of justice - even though its blemished history of injustice threatens to make the it a pariah among civilized states. By contrast, Dr. Moles notes in the letter that, "(T)he US Registry of Exonerations records 3,782 exonerations since 1989. Up to November 2025 there had been 608 successful appeals resulting from referrals by the UK CCRC. The Canadian Registry of Wrongful Convictions records 90 such cases. In addition, the UK has had to overturn over 900 criminal convictions arising from what has become known as the Post Office Scandal. It had to legislate to enable the convictions to be set aside without a referral to the appeal court." These nation's have bitten the bullet, even though that bullet has often exposed the respective government to criticism and electoral risk. Moreover, Dr. Moles gives other examples of massive harm that government's have had to address - and have addressed (unlike South Australia), noting that, "As a result of misconduct by forensic technicians at the Massachusetts Crime laboratory over 32,000 convictions were overturned. In the UK more recently some 1,600 prosecutions were abandoned due to non-disclosure issues." His message is clear: "Taking ownership of the problem and engaging in meaningful rectification will put an end to the continuing damage to the lives of victims and to the potential damage to the professional reputations of those who would prefer to kick the can down the road." His proposal to the top officials is also clear. Take advantage of the arrival of a newly appointed Director of Publications to demonstrate to the world that South Australia is able to change it's deeply rooted 'spots,' by appointing a special counsel who, I suspect, would be able to act strongly, deeply and independently before a new Director of Public Prosecutions (subject to political pressures) is appointed. The appointment of a special counsel with broad powers would signal a willingness of the government to address the damaging fallout of the Manock years, begin the process of reform, and help bring the justice to Derek Bromley, and so many others, that they deserve. So many others? Dr Moles: "Our previous submission explained that Dr Manock claimed to have given evidence to help secure over 400 criminal convictions and to have completed over 10,000 autopsies."
Harold Levy: Publisher: The Charles Smith Blog;
---------------------------------------------
LETTER DATED 3 April 2026; Addressed to the Premier annd Attorney-General of South Australia:
GIST: Dear Premier and Attorney-General: Dr Manock and the case of Derek Bromley;
--------------------------------------------
Summary of key points
- Derek Bromley was convicted of murder in 1984
- Dr Colin Manock (chief forensic pathologist) was the key witness at Mr Bromley’s trial
- Prior to 1984 the Forensic Science Centre gave sworn evidence to the Supreme Court
- It stated - Dr Manock was ‘not qualified to certify cause of death’
- It stated -‘he had no expert qualifications’
- The state has a duty of disclosure to the court
- It must disclose any evidence which goes to the credibility of any state witness
- The duty is continuing – it applies after any trial and appeals have been concluded
- The true status of Dr Manock was not disclosed by the Crown at Mr Bromley’s trial.
- It was not disclosed during any of Mr Bromley’s subsequent appeals
- The inevitable conclusion is that Mr Bromley was wrongly convicted.
- The state has a duty to correct this appalling state of affairs
- It may do so by supporting a further appeal under the further appeal provisions
- Failing that, Mr Bromley may challenge his conviction by an application to a single
judge of the Supreme Court alleging that his conviction was obtained by fraud.
On 9 April 2026 The Advertiser reported that Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) Martin Hinton KC was stepping down from his position, three months before the end of his term, to head overseas.
On 20 March 2023 I sent a submission to Mr Hinton regarding the Crown’s duty of
disclosure in the case of Mr Derek Bromley which was due for hearing before the High Court of Australia.
It was copied to the Premier and the Attorney-General and tabled in the
South Australian Parliament (Legislative Council). It set out the evidence and legal
principles supporting the propositions in the above ‘key points’.
Mr Bromley had been convicted of murder in 1984 and had served over 40 years in prison.
A key witness at his trial had been Dr Colin Manock who had served as chief forensic pathologist in South Australia from 1968-1995.
I explained that:... at the time of Mr Bromley’s trial in 1984, prosecutors knew, or ought to have known, that Dr Manock was incompetent, unqualified and his evidence was not admissible as expert evidence in legal proceedings.
I also explained that during the 40 years Mr Bromley had languished in prison, a great deal more had become known about Dr Manock and the unprecedented extent of his lack of qualifications, his incompetence and his dishonesty.
I referred to the fact that an eminent pathologist from the UK (Dr Richard Shepherd) had recently stated on national television in Australia that Dr Manock had been ‘a charlatan’ and that he had ‘gone completely rogue’ and just ‘made things up’.
Despite that, the crown’s written submission to the High Court on Mr Bromley’s appeal had stated that:
The referral is to be determined on the basis of the pathological evidence given at trial [by Dr Manock] and the use made of that evidence by the prosecution and the defence at trial.
I said in my letter to the DPP, that given what was now known about Dr Manock’s
incompetence and dishonesty, the effect of such a submission would be to mislead the court on a crucial issue.
It would obviously be important to ‘correct the record’ during oral submissions. However, during oral submissions the DPP stated:... the body [of the deceased] had sustained blunt force trauma to the head and arms, and on anyone’s case, it was ante-mortem at trial. Dr Manock put it within the last 24 hours of life.
However, that was also misleading by not referring to the evidence on the appeal.
Dr Lynch, the crown’s expert witness had stated that it was not possible to provide a particular point on a timeline when the injuries could have occurred. He said it was possible they could all have occurred in the postmortem period.
The other two expert witnesses on this issue, Professor Thomas and Dr Collins, agreed with that view.
The DPP also went on to state, ‘at trial, on anyone’s case, this man had drowned. It was not in dispute he had drowned.’
However, that was also misleading without referring to the evidence on the appeal which was as follows:
Professor Thomas: I do not believe that one can make the diagnosis of death from
drowning. There is no substantive evidence for drowning in this case. A natural cause may explain the death.
Dr Collins (who had a special interest in drowning cases): My position is that the cause of death in this case is unascertained and I do not believe it is appropriate to say that there is no doubt the death resulted from drowning.
Dr Lynch (the Crown appointed expert): I said in my report that the cause of death should be stated as undetermined or unascertained. I am not in a position to say that he drowned.
It should be noted that Professor Thomas and Dr Lynch had given similar evidence in the appeal of Henry Keogh.
The appeal court there accepted their evidence that Dr Manock’s failure to conduct a proper autopsy had led to the conclusion that he had not established the cause of death as being by drowning.
It is disturbing to find that the appeal court would not accept the similar findings of the same experts on that issue in Mr Bromley’s case.
My submission to the DPP in Mr Bromley’s matter referred to previous Australian legal authorities.
They stated that the securing (or maintaining) of a conviction by officials based
on evidence known to be false or misleading is ‘an unspeakable outrage’ and could amount to ‘an extremely grave criminal offence’.
The UK authorities have stated that it would be to ‘pervert the course of justice’ and if done in conjunction with others would amount to a ‘conspiracy to pervert the course of justice’ which are also very serious criminal offences.
I had suggested to Mr Hinton that the appropriate position for the crown to take would be to concede that the conviction of Mr Bromley had been improperly obtained and that it should be overturned.
The most appropriate and effective means by which that could be done
would be for the DPP to advise Mr Bromley’s legal advisors that the prosecution would make such a concession if a further appeal were to be brought.
Mr Bromley is entitled to pursue a further appeal under the extension to the appeal provisions implemented in May 2013 in South Australia.
Unfortunately, Mr Hinton did not accede to the request for a crown concession in Mr Bromley’s matter. However, now that the appointment of a further DPP is in prospect, we should be mindful that a similar approach will be made to the new DPP when appointed.
Our previous submission explained that Dr Manock claimed to have given evidence to help secure over 400 criminal convictions and to have completed over 10,000 autopsies.
There is also the evidence, given by the former head of the forensic science centre to the Supreme Court, that Dr Manock was ‘not qualified to certify cause of death’ and that ‘he had no expert qualifications’.
The new DPP will of course agree with Mr Hinton that the duty of disclosure continues, even after the regular appeal process has been completed, as he
explained in his article on this topic.
That will clearly present an invidious problem for a new DPP to deal with.
However, experience has shown that wrongful convictions, are far from being rare.
The US Registry of Exonerations records 3,782 exonerations since 1989.
Up to November 2025 there had been 608 successful appeals resulting from referrals by the UK CCRC.
The Canadian Registry of Wrongful Convictions records 90 such cases. In addition, the UK has had to overturn over 900 criminal convictions arising from what has become known as the Post Office Scandal.
It had to legislate to enable the convictions to be set aside without a
referral to the appeal court.
As a result of misconduct by forensic technicians at the Massachusetts Crime laboratory over 32,000 convictions were overturned.
In the UK more recently some 1,600 prosecutions were abandoned due to non-disclosure issues.
The provisions related to this issue are available at the NetK: South Australia New Right of Appeal Homepage.
The lesson to be learned from the history of such cases is that the continuation of the process of delay, denial and obfuscation will make the inevitable accountability more costly and more painful for all involved.
Taking ownership of the problem and engaging in meaningful rectification will put an end to the continuing damage to the lives of victims and to the potential damage to the professional reputations of those who would prefer to kick the can down the road.
I respectfully request that you consider appointing a special counsel to address this issue before the new DPP is appointed and enable us to work together to determine a constructive solution to this problem.
Yours sincerely,
Dr Robert N Moles ACII (UK) LLB (Hons) (Belf) PhD (Edin)
Adjunct Associate Professor (Business, Govt and Law) Flinders University
Networked Knowledge."
----------------------------------------
PUBLISHER'S NOTE: I am monitoring this case/issue/resource. Keep your eye on the Charles Smith Blog for reports on developments. The Toronto Star, my previous employer for more than twenty incredible years, has put considerable effort into exposing the harm caused by Dr. Charles Smith and his protectors - and into pushing for reform of Ontario's forensic pediatric pathology system. Please send any comments or information on other cases and issues of interest to the readers of this blog to: hlevy15@gmail.com. Harold Levy: Publisher: The Charles Smith Blog.
FINAL WORD: (Applicable to all of our wrongful conviction cases): "Whenever there is a wrongful conviction, it exposes errors in our criminal legal system, and we hope that this case — and lessons from it — can prevent future injustices."Lawyer Radha Natarajan: Executive Director: New England Innocence Project;
FINAL, FINAL WORD: "Since its inception, the Innocence Project has pushed the criminal legal system to confront and correct the laws and policies that cause and contribute to wrongful convictions. They never shied away from the hard cases — the ones involving eyewitness identifications, confessions, and bite marks. Instead, in the course of presenting scientific evidence of innocence, they've exposed the unreliability of evidence that was, for centuries, deemed untouchable." So true!Christina Swarns: Executive Director: The Innocence Project;
