"LEIGH SALES, PRESENTER: South Australia could be set for a massive
legal crisis, after a case discrediting the State's top forensic expert,
Dr Colin Manock. Last month in Adelaide, a man had his murder
case dismissed after spending 21 years in jail. He claims the wrongful
conviction was due to the testimony of Dr Manock. The expert has given evidence in 400 criminal convictions and a number of those accused are now set to return to court. As Alex Mann reports, it could trigger a royal commission and a hefty compensation bill.
ALEX MANN: Does it feel like there's been an injustice?
ROBYN MILERA: Ah, there's been a huge injustice.
ALEX
MANN: The man is Derek Bromley, Robyn Milera's former brother-in-law.
In 1984 he was convicted of the murder of Stephen Docoza after his body
was found floating in the River Torrens.
REPORTER (ABC TV news,
1984): In setting the non-parole period, Mr Justice Matheson said
Bromley and Karpany had gone with Docoza to the banks of the Torrens at
night and Bromley had demanded sex.
There was, according to the
eyewitness, a serious prolonged bashing which ended in the possible
assisted drowning of the deceased.
ALEX MANN: Derek Bromley has now spent 31 years in prison for a murder he claims he didn't commit.
(To Robyn Milera) Did Derek kill Stephen Docoza?
ROBYN MILERA: In my own heart I believe him: I believe that he did not commit that murder.
ALEX MANN: Derek Bromley was found guilty in a case that South Australian forensic pathologist Dr Manock gave evidence.
ROBYN MILERA: Dr Manock: in his autopsy, he did not systematically rule out other causes of death.
BOB
MOLES, DR., LEGAL ACADEMIC: When we begin to look at the content of his
evidence and his description of the injuries and his identification of
the cause of death: all of those are now in question and all are thought
to be unreliable.
ALEX MANN: Dr Colin Manock was SA's chief
forensic pathologist for almost 30 years. Between 1968 and 1995, he
conducted more than 9,000 autopsies and gave evidence in almost every
major case. ........BOB
MOLES, DR., LEGAL ACADEMIC: When we begin to look at the content of his
evidence and his description of the injuries and his identification of
the cause of death: all of those are now in question and all are thought
to be unreliable.
ALEX MANN: Dr Colin Manock was SA's chief
forensic pathologist for almost 30 years. Between 1968 and 1995, he
conducted more than 9,000 autopsies and gave evidence in almost every
major case.
(Excerpt from 7.30 Report, 1991)
COLIN
MANOCK, DR., FMR SA CHIEF FORENSIC PATHOLOGIST (1991): There are very
good reasons for carrying out post-mortem examinations: and that is that
you cannot assume from clinical history that you know what the cause of
death is going to be. And a series of post-mortem examinations
following a medical death certificate showed about 50 per cent were
wrong.
(Excerpt ends)
ALEX MANN: But now the findings in every one of Dr Manock's autopsies are under a cloud.
BOB
MOLES: We are now in 2015. We have now had the Court of Appeal say that
Dr Manock gives evidence that's unwarranted speculation.
We've
had a coroner who said his autopsy reports achieve the opposite of their
proper purpose and that he gives evidence in answer to questions on
oath that are spurious. These are really quite terrible things.
ALEX
MANN: Two decades ago, Henry Keogh was sentenced to life in prison for
the murder of his fiancée, Anna-Jane Cheney. Again, the key forensic
evidence was provided by Dr Manock.
BOB MOLES: In fact, if you look at the black-and-white photograph that was given to the jury...
ALEX MANN: In the late 1990s, law professor Bob Moles reviewed Keogh's case.
BOB
MOLES: There were bruises on the leg of the young woman, said to be
indicative of a hand grip - and that was almost like a smoking gun in
this case.
And then, when it came through on the appeal, it was
established that the evidence that Dr Manock had given was no more than
unwarranted speculation.
We've
had a coroner who said his autopsy reports achieve the opposite of their
proper purpose and that he gives evidence in answer to questions on
oath that are spurious. These are really quite terrible things. ........ALEX
MANN: Last month, after nearly 20 years of legal appeals, Henry Keogh's
conviction was set aside. The holes in Dr Manock's evidence were at the
centre of his case.
BOB MOLES: The significance of Keogh's
appeal is that it establishes that Dr Manock did not engage in proper
procedures; did not draw proper conclusions from his investigations;
didn't have proper evidence for what he said he saw.
ALEX MANN:
Now hundreds of cases involving Dr Manock's evidence are in doubt,
including the notorious baby deaths of the early 90s, when three infants
in separate incidents were found by Dr Manock to have died of
bronchopneumonia.
BOB MOLES: One of the babies had 15 broken
ribs, two skull fractures and a very serious fracture of the spine. And
clearly the baby had been beaten to death.
And we would like to
know whether there's any more cases like that, that would warrant
prosecutions. And if so, we need to get onto them as quick as we can.
There's absolutely no doubt at all that we need a royal commission to have a look at this.
Read entire transcript at:
http://www.abc.net.au/7.30/content/2015/s4368496.htm