PUBISHER'S NOTE: The Colin Manock debacle has been referred to as, "the shocking scandal nobody wants to touch." As noted by Bill Rollings, CEO of 'Civil Liberties Australia.' Manock who was unqualified and untrained for the position of South Australia's chief pathologist - and was also incompetent - retired in 1995, after about 30 years as the state's top forensic "expert." Rollings makes the telling point that "no government - including the current Liberal or previous Labour, has been prepared to face up to the "shocking scandal." That may well change with the recent publication of "A Witness of fact - Dr. Colin Manock' by author Drew Rooke which reveals the extraordinary harm caused by Manock over three decades. I am not aware of any pathologist anywhere in the world who has been permitted by a government to cause such untold harm to individuals and to the state's criminal justice system over such a lengthy period of time. (Please let me know at hlevy15@gmail.com if you are.) Thanks to this book, and the efforts of advocates such as impassioned law reformer and criminal justice advocate Dr. Robert Moles to draw attention to it, no amount of 'spin', political rhetoric, or 'looking the other way' can hide the South Australian governments' abdication of the public trust vis a vis Manock, for so many years, up to the present, by covering up Manock's lack of qualifications lack of training, and incompetence in the face of documented knowledge to its existence. Thus, the subject of the post is the letter that Dr. Moles has written to South Australia's Prime Minister and Acting Attorney General bringing 'A Witness of Fact' to their attention in no uncertain terms. Incidentally, you will note that Dr. Mole's letter is 'copied' to Frank Pangallo, Chair of the South Australian Parliament's 'Crime and public Integrity Policy Committee. It was Frank Pangallo who coined the words, 'the shocking scandal that nobody wants to touch." Moreover, I suspect that Rooke's book will be of interest to South Australia's judges. Manock pulled the wool over their eyes, with the government's help. Injustices resulted in their courts. Their justice system risked falling into disrepute. They acceded to the prosecutors who beseeched them to qualify Manock an an "expert' witness in their courts. The various levels of the judiciary should publicly acknowledge their failures of acting as the gatekeepers in their courtrooms - who determined when a potential witness was an 'expert' who called be allowed to give evidence for the prosecution. Lastly, Rooke's book, which is bound to get attention far beyond South Australia's borders, will serve as a weapon in the on-going battle to remedy the damage caused by Manock to innocent individuals such as Derek Bromley and their families, by fighting to bring their cases back before the courts, to secure their freedom and exoneration.
https://www.cla.asn.au/News/shocking-scandal-nobody-wants-to-touch-mp/-
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
PASSAGE OF THE DAY: "The only way to avoid a further undermining of the rule of law in South Australia is to ensure that the Crown makes full disclosure of all relevant issues concerning Dr Manock in any future legal proceedings. I am confident that in the particular matter which is proceeding to the High Court (the case of Mr Bromley), the outcome will result in an overturning of the conviction. If that occurs, it will result in very substantial national and international interest in this case, involving as it does: the length of time incarcerated (over 38 years); the fact that the applicant is an aboriginal man (other non-aboriginal people convicted of similar offences have received sentences of less than 10 years); the fact that the state put forward an ‘expert witness’ who provided false and misleading evidence whilst he was known to be unqualified and his evidence to be inadmissible. There are other facts disclosed in Mr Rooke’s book which make reference to the abhorrent treatment of aboriginal people by this pathologist."
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
PASSAGE TWO OF THE DAY: "It is now clear that the time for denial, delay and obfuscation is past. The High Court is on track to issue a determination during the course of this year or early next year. This means that prior to the next state election, there will be a very great scandal about this issue one way or another. The only safe place for any of us to be is on the side of an investigation to find the true facts concerning what has occurred - and taking all necessary steps to mitigate and remediate the loss, damage and hurt which has been incurred. For those who might seek to find comfort in remaining silent and busying themselves with other important tasks, one might suggest that the lesson of history is a cruel master. There have of course been many times when senior officials have stood-by silently whilst allowing the lives of innocent people to be ruined – but eventually the truth will out. The retrospective view will judge all of us by the good that we did, when balanced by the evil that we permitted. Allowing a person to dissect the bodies of thousands of men, women and children when it was known that he did not have the knowledge to ascertain the truth about their cause of death is a very great evil. To permit such a person to help convict innocent people of serious crimes whilst allowing perpetrators of those crimes to walk free is also a very great evil. Covering up such crimes or allowing judgment concerning them to be delayed for substantial periods of time is also an evil and not consistent with our belief in the rule of law."
------------------------------------------------------------------
PASSAGE THREE OF THE DAY: "It will come as no surprise to people in the community that the AG is the senior law officer of the state, and presumably, in that capacity will find that most of the issues which the AG has to address will involve legal proceedings of one sort or another. In this case, the suggestion is that the ‘legal proceedings’ concern around 400 wrongful convictions and at least 10,000 potentially unlawful autopsies. It also involves the forensic services, the office of public prosecutions, the judiciary (for all of whom the AG is ultimately responsible) and a wide range of other lawyers and officials who knew or ought to have known about Manock’s failings and failed to disclose them in legal proceedings spanning more than 53 years."
-------------------------------------------------------------------
PASSAGE FOUR OF THE DAY: "I call upon the Premier and the Attorney-General to take appropriate action to ensure that full disclosure is made to the court in any legal proceedings involving the work of the former chief forensic pathologist Dr Colin Manock. I also call upon the Premier and the Attorney-General to set up a formal inquiry into the circumstances concerning the appointment of Dr Colin Manock, and the circumstances."
---------------------------------------------------------------------
I enclose my review of this book which is being published by Drew Rooke. It concerns the disgraceful career of former chief forensic pathologist Dr Colin Manock. Some of the significant details are referred to in the review and in the previous correspondence with the Attorney-General which are available at the Networked Knowledge Manock Homepage.
In that correspondence I referred to judgments of the courts which have stated that the securing of a wrongful conviction by evidence which is known to be false and misleading constitutes ‘an unspeakable outrage’, ‘criminal misconduct of the worst possible kind’ and ‘corruption at the extreme end of official corruption’.
Of course, those cases only envisaged a single case in which such things had occurred. It is clear that they never contemplated the possibility that a single state official (a pathologist) could help to secure over 400 wrongful convictions by giving perjured evidence to the court about his status, his qualifications and the evidence which he gave in those cases. It is clear from Mr Rooke’s book that all of this has been done here. It can be inferred from the fact that the head of the Forensic Science Centre gave sworn evidence to the court in the mid-1970s that this so-called ‘expert’ was not in fact qualified to do autopsies or to give expert evidence about them in court. It can also be inferred from other numerous judgments of the courts and the coroner where the judicial findings stated that the witness had given false or misleading evidence or otherwise stated things which were untrue.
I cannot imagine what language those judges would have used if they had to describe such misconduct, or the fact that the same pathologist had actually undertaken over 10,000 autopsies, whilst it was on the court record that he was not qualified to do autopsies at all.
There are a significant number of eminent pathologists and lawyers referred to in Mr Rooke’s book who have reported that it never occurred to them that such a senior state official could conduct such important work, whilst the state knew (but failed to disclose) that he was not qualified to do that work. They had all believed that the state officials would honour their duty of disclosure to the court.
It is also difficult to understand why the various state officials have done nothing to investigate or remedy these unprecedented deficiencies since we first disclosed them over twenty years ago.
In his book Mr Rooke refers to a radio interview in which the Attorney-General stated that Manock’s work was ‘completely unreliable, in fact manifestly so, for the purposes of making it simply unsustainable to have a conviction be maintained’. Yet, despite this obviously sensible admission by the Attorney-General, there are proceedings on foot which are to be determined by Australia’s apex court (the High Court of Australia) in which it appears that an attempt will be made to ‘maintain’ a conviction by the state - without disclosing to the court the obvious deficiencies which have been referred to.
If the securing of a conviction on the basis of false and fraudulent evidence is an ‘unspeakable outrage’ or ‘criminal misconduct’ or ‘official corruption’ then it must follow that any attempt to ‘maintain’ such a conviction must be similarly described.
It is clear that any lawyer would know that their most important duty is ‘not to mislead the court’. They would also know that misleading can occur by act or omission. In addition, any prosecutor would know that if there is any evidence which would undermine the case being put by the Crown, then the ‘duty of disclosure’ requires them to ensure that ‘the court’ is informed of that evidence. They would also be fully aware of their obligations as a ‘model litigant’ which includes the requirement not to put parties to unnecessary proofs.
In summary, it would appear to be unthinkable that any state (or prosecutors acting on behalf of the state) would go to any court (let alone the ‘supreme court’ of that state or country) and attempt to uphold a conviction without disclosing to that court what is widely known by the public and by people interstate and overseas – that the chief Crown witness was not qualified to do the work or to give evidence about it in court.
Thanks to the information contained in Mr Rooke’s book, the public in Australia and in other countries will now be more fully informed about the background to these tragic issues which have occurred in South Australia.
The only way to avoid a further undermining of the rule of law in South Australia is to ensure that the Crown makes full disclosure of all relevant issues concerning Dr Manock in any future legal proceedings.
I am confident that in the particular matter which is proceeding to the High Court (the case of Mr Bromley), the outcome will result in an overturning of the conviction. If that occurs, it will result in very substantial national and international interest in this case, involving as it does:
the length of time incarcerated (over 38 years)
the fact that the applicant is an aboriginal man (other non-aboriginal people convicted of similar offences have received sentences of less than 10 years)
the fact that the state put forward an ‘expert witness’ who provided false and misleading evidence whilst he was known to be unqualified and his evidence to be inadmissible.
There are other facts disclosed in Mr Rooke’s book which make reference to the abhorrent treatment of aboriginal people by this pathologist. Much of that will resonate with our colleagues in Australia and other countries as we begin to come to terms with similar issues raised by the “Black Lives Matter” movement.
Of course, if the High Court were to affirm the conviction in this case, after the state had withheld material such as the information in Mr Rooke’s book, then that would also give rise to a scandal of national and international interest.
It is now clear that the time for denial, delay and obfuscation is past. The High Court is on track to issue a determination during the course of this year or early next year. This means that prior to the next state election, there will be a very great scandal about this issue one way or another. The only safe place for any of us to be is on the side of an investigation to find the true facts concerning what has occurred - and taking all necessary steps to mitigate and remediate the loss, damage and hurt which has been incurred.
For those who might seek to find comfort in remaining silent and busying themselves with other important tasks, one might suggest that the lesson of history is a cruel master. There have of course been many times when senior officials have stood-by silently whilst allowing the lives of innocent people to be ruined – but eventually the truth will out. The retrospective view will judge all of us by the good that we did, when balanced by the evil that we permitted.
Allowing a person to dissect the bodies of thousands of men, women and children when it was known that he did not have the knowledge to ascertain the truth about their cause of death is a very great evil. To permit such a person to help convict innocent people of serious crimes whilst allowing perpetrators of those crimes to walk free is also a very great evil. Covering up such crimes or allowing judgment concerning them to be delayed for substantial periods of time is also an evil and not consistent with our belief in the rule of law.
I call upon the Premier and the Attorney-General to take appropriate action to ensure that full disclosure is made to the court in any legal proceedings involving the work of the former chief forensic pathologist Dr Colin Manock.
I also call upon the Premier and the Attorney-General to set up a formal inquiry into the circumstances concerning the appointment of Dr Colin Manock, and the circumstances under which he was allowed to conduct 10,000 unlawful autopsies and to help secure over 400 wrongful criminal convictions." Yours Sincerely. Dr. Robert Moles: Networked Knowledge;
The entire letter can be read at:
http://netk.net.au/Manock/Manock35.pdf
