STORY: "Push for royal commission following High Court finding on pathologist's flawed testimony," by court reporter Candice Prosser, published by ABC News on November 8, 2017.
PHOTO CAPTION: The High Court agreed that forensic analysis by Dr Colin Manock, shown here in 1991, was wrong. (7.30 Report)
PHOTO CAPTION: Frits Van Beelen was imprisoned for 17 years for the murder of Deborah Leach.
PHOTO CAPTION: Van Beelen's lawyer Kevin Borick (right) wants an inquiry into cases involving evidence from Dr Colin Manock.
PHOTO CAPTION: Evidence supplied by Dr Colin Manock was part of the case against Henry Keogh, whose conviction was overturned in 2014.
GIST: "A High Court ruling in a 46-year-old murder case has
renewed calls for a royal commission into the discredited former chief
forensic pathologist who performed the young victim's autopsy. Dr
Colin Manock's 27-year career as South Australia's top forensic
pathologist saw him conduct thousands of autopsies and testify in
hundreds of court cases. Among those was the drowning murder of
15-year-old Deborah Leach, whose partially clothed body was found buried
in seaweed at Taperoo beach in Adelaide's north-west in 1971. Her convicted killer Frits Van Beelen, who admitted being on the mostly deserted beach that afternoon, has always maintained his innocence. Among other evidence, Dr Manock's testimony as to the time of death formed part of the prosecution case against him. Dr
Manock estimated the time of her drowning based on "unscientific"
analysis of the teenager's stomach contents, and testified that it could
have been no later than 4:30pm when Van Beelen had left the beach. The High Court agreed with Van Beelen's lawyers that Dr Manock's analysis was wrong, but dismissed Van Beelen's appeal because it couldn't be satisfied that amounted to a substantial miscarriage of justice. However,
the court's findings that the evidence discrediting Dr Manock's
testimony amounted to fresh and compelling evidence has reignited calls
for a full inquiry. Van Beelen's lawyer, Kevin Borick QC, is among those who want to see a proper investigation.
"All
members of the High Court clearly found that the evidence given by Dr
Manock about the time of death was wrong," Mr Borick said. "The time must come when there is in effect a royal commission or a proper commission of inquiry into his conduct." Dr Bob Moles, a respected legal academic at Flinders University, agreed there needed to be a thorough investigation. "I
think it's self-evident that when serious questions have been raised
about a person in such an important position that these things should
not be left to the vagaries of individual pieces of litigation through
the courts," he said. "It would be very sensible for the
Government to set up a royal commission or a judicial inquiry so we can
get to the bottom of this." Findings could prompt new appeals, expert predicts. Dr Moles said it also needed to be established whether Dr Manock was ever qualified to hold his position. "That
is an issue that has not been raised in any of the legal proceedings so
far under this new right of appeal," Dr Moles said. "If it is in
fact determined that Dr Manock is not properly qualified either as a
pathologist or as an expert witness — and we believe that those options
are open — then in fact all of the cases in which he's given evidence
would be subject to challenge "On
his own admission that's about 400 cases and also, if he's not properly
qualified to conduct autopsies, then the 10,000 autopsies that he says
he's conducted would all have to be reconsidered." Dr Moles said the High Court judgment,
despite ruling against Van Beelen, contained important findings that may
help others waiting to reopen their cases. "It's a very
interesting judgment for us because the Court of Appeal in South
Australia had interpreted this new right of appeal in a way that made
the test for leave to appeal very demanding," he said. "The High Court has in fact toned that down a bit. "The
Court of Appeal in South Australia refused permission to appeal in the
Van Beelen case, the High Court granted leave to appeal, they just
decided that the particular point that was raised before the High Court
wasn't sufficient for the appeal to be granted." In a statement, Attorney-General John Rau said he was still considering the High Court judgment. "I have not had the opportunity to consider the reasons for the judgement, but I am pleased with the outcome," he said."The entire story can be found at:
Listen to 'Pathological experts under scrutiny," on the Wire - an independent current affairs program at the link below: "News broke today that former top forensic pathologist Dr Colin Manock gave wrong evidence in a murder case in 1971 that resulted in Frits Van Beelen being charged with murdering 15-year-old Deborah Leach. The finding has opened up concerns that many of the other hundreds of court cases in which Dr Manock was an expert witness could come under scrutiny. Dr Rob Moles is a legal academic at Flinders University. The Wire’s Henry Wilson asked him and Today Tonight reporter and author on the issue Graham Archer for their reactions to the ruling."
http://thewire.org.au/story/pathological-forensics-expert-scrutiny/
PUBLISHER'S NOTE: I am monitoring this case/issue. 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. The Star has a "topic" section which focuses on recent stories related to Dr. Charles Smith. It can be found at: http://www.thestar.com/topic/c
