GOUDGE REPORT RESONATES IN SOUTH AUSTRALIA: PARALLELS DRAWN TO KEOGH CASE;

SOUTH AUSTRALIA STILL CONTINUES TO DENY THE EXISTENCE OF A PROBLEM DESPITE OVERWHELMING AND COMPELLING EVIDENCE TO THE CONTRARY. IT IS CLEAR THAT IN DUE COURSE, A ROYAL COMMISSION IN SOUTH AUSTRALIA WILL REACH CONCLUSIONS ABOUT THE DELAY AND PREVARICATION ON THE PART OF OFFICIALS SIMILAR TO THOSE NOW FOUND BY THE GOUDGE COMMISSION. THE ONLY QUESTION WILL BE HOW LONG IT WILL TAKE US TO ACHIEVE THAT RESULT. IT WILL BE INTERESTING TO SEE HOW MANY MORE PEOPLE MAY YET SEE THEIR REPUTATIONS TARNISHED OR DEMOLISHED BY THEIR INACTION.

FROM DR. ROBERT MOLES LETTER TO THE SOUTH AUSTRALIAN AUDITOR-GENERAL;

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Unless South Australia establishes a Commission similar to the Goudge Inquiry its forensic pathology system will deteriorate even further, its Auditor General has been warned.

The warning is set out in an October 27, 2008 letter sent to the South Australian Auditor General by Dr. Bob Moles who has been in the forefront of exposing miscarriages of justice based on flawed pathology in that country.

"The Commissioner Justice Stephen Goudge released this important report on 1 October 2008," Mole's letter to the Auditor General begins.

"He states that the failures of forensic pathology in Toronto became a nightmare for those unfortunate enough to be caught up in it," it continues.

"He pointed out that Dr Charles Smith became the Head of Pediatric Forensic Pathology without formal training or certification. The same may be said concerning Dr Manock in South Australia.

He points out that there were serious criticisms of Dr Smith by judges in a number of legal cases.

The same has occurred with Dr Manock in South Australia.
See A state of Injustice (2004) http://netk.net.au/soi/soi.asp

Justice Goudge points out that the warning signs were ignored, and that people who were in positions of authority and who either had a duty or an opportunity to do something either turned a blind eye, or else made false and misleading statements to cover up for Dr Smith’s inadequacies.

As was pointed out in Losing Their Grip – the case of Henry Keogh (2006) p118, the then Coroner Wayne Chivell (now Judge Chivell) stated, he “.. decided, of his own volition, to delay publishing the Findings until after the trial [of Mr Keogh] concluded.” See http://netk.net.au/ltg/LTG11.asp

The Findings referred to are the Findings of the Coronial Inquiry into the Baby Deaths in South Australia.

As part of the Ontario Inquiry, Ms Bibi Sangha and I were commissioned by the Inquiry to provide a research report on the baby deaths and other cases in South Australia.

This has now been published in Volume 2 of the Independent Research Studies of the Inquiry, which I provide to you for your information.

Justice Goudge states: “These experts are among the world’s leaders in their fields. The product of their work, found in the two volumes of studies, is graphic testimony to their stature. .. The eleven works constitute truly independent research. I read each one carefully and with great interest as soon as it became available to me. They are uniformly excellent and assisted greatly in the work of the Inquiry. I am very grateful to Professor Roach [the Director of Research] and the authors for their outstanding contributions and for adding, in such a substantive and useful way, to the body of knowledge of forensic pathology.”

Professor Roach states: “I was fortunate to be able to retain, on behalf of the Commission, some of the top researchers on many issues relating to pediatric forensic pathology and its interaction with the legal system.”

He said that it was important to learn from the mistakes and the best practices of other jurisdictions. Extensive reports on best practices were provided to the Commission by the Victorian Institute of Forensic Medicine, and the important contribution of Professor Stephen Cordner of the VIFM to the work of the Inquiry was frequently acknowledged by Justice Goudge.

Professor Roach stated in relation to the South Australian report, that the study poses the question of whether there may be a connection between pediatric forensic pathology that arguably produced false negatives in the three baby death cases and other cases that may have produced false positives in terms of findings of non-accidental death that are open to dispute.

He said that the authors also examine how a Royal Commission that led to improvements in other forensic sciences in South Australia had little impact on the practice of forensic pathology.

Ms Sangha and I are now engaged on a book “Forensic Investigations – the rhetoric and the reality” which will be published in Canada early next year.

It is being jointly authored with Professor Roach and Julie Goulding of the UK Criminal Cases Review Commission.

It is a comparative study of responses to miscarriages of justice in Canada, the UK and Australia.

It compares the developments in the UK (with the Criminal Cases Review Commission), and in Canada (with eight Judicial Inquiries), with the denials and obfuscation in South Australia where officials have continued to deny that there is anything amiss.

Justice Goudge explained in relation to Dr Smith that the serious systemic failings included sloppy and inconsistent documentation, that he was indiscriminate in accepting information about cases, and his conclusions were skewed by unscientific considerations and his ultimate opinions were fundamentally wrong.

However, he went on to point out that those charged with overseeing his performance cannot escape responsibility.

They accepted false, misleading and deceptive statements by Dr Smith to cover up for his shortcomings.

The Commissioner points out that despite clear opinion that Dr Smith’s conclusions were “unsubstantiated and baseless” those in authority still continued to assert that they fell within a reasonable range.

This can be compared with the various parliamentary statements by the Attorney-General which have been discussed in “Losing Their Grip” and similarly found to be wanting: http://netk.net.au/ltg/LTG11.asp -
http://netk.net.au/ltg/LTG12.asp

The UK has spent some ten years attending to miscarriages of justice by means of the Criminal Cases Review Commission.

Some 240 convictions have been overturned as a result of their work in that time.

Canada has spent a similar amount of time working through miscarriages of justice by means of Judicial Inquiries in relation to the cases of Morin, Sophonow, Truscott, Dalton, Druken, Parsons, Driskell, George, Milgaard, Walsh and some 20 further cases resulting from Dr Smith’s work which were dealt with in the Goudge Inquiry Report.

South Australia still continues to deny the existence of a problem despite overwhelming and compelling evidence to the contrary.

It is clear that in due course, a Royal Commission in South Australia will reach conclusions about the delay and prevarication on the part of officials similar to those now found by the Goudge Commission.

The only question will be how long it will take us to achieve that result. It will be interesting to see how many more people may yet see their reputations tarnished or demolished by their inaction."

Dr. Moles ends the letter with the following uP-date:

Keogh’s appeal concerning the finding of misconduct in relation to Dr James is to be heard by full court. Judgement available at http://netk.net.au/Keogh/Keogh102.asp -;

The prosecution of Dr Manock before the Medical Tribunal is continuing: Complaint available at: http://netk.net.au/Reports/KeoghIndex.asp#MedicalBoard;

Keogh’s Fourth Petition alleging his conviction was obtained by fraud, deceit and manifest error will be lodged with the Governor of South Australia early November. Details will be available here: http://netk.net.au/KeoghHome.asp

Harold Levy...hlevy15@gmail.com;