Sunday, January 30, 2022

Disgraced South Australia former Chief Pathologist Colin Manock: Power of the written word: A copy his review of the recently published book by Drew Rooke (Scribe) 'A witness of fact' - Dr. Colin Manock,' has been sent to South Australia's Premier and Attorney General by noted author and law reformer Dr. Bob Moles of the 'Networked Knowledge' website - which is devoted to combatting and rectifying miscarriages of justice..."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."


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 Rookes 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."

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

LETTER: From author, law reformer and battler for the wrongly convicted  Dr. Bob Moles to  South Australia Premier  Steven Marshall,  and to Acting Attorney-General Josh Teague, the cabinet minister responsible for law and justice - 're Manock and duty of disclosure.'

GIST: "Dear Premier and Attorney-General / Acting Attorney-General: Publication of book: A Witness of Fact - Dr Colin Manock

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 outragecriminal 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 Rookes 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 Rookes 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 Manocks 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 Australias 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 Rookes 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 Rookes 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 Rookes 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

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/charlessmith. Information on "The Charles Smith Blog Award"- and its nomination process - can be found at: http://smithforensic.blogspot.com/2011/05/charles-smith-blog-award-nominations.html 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;



SEE BREAKDOWN OF  SOME OF THE ON-GOING INTERNATIONAL CASES (OUTSIDE OF THE CONTINENTAL USA) THAT I AM FOLLOWING ON THIS BLOG,  AT THE LINK BELOW:  HL:



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;