PASSAGE OF THE DAY: "In the event that Mr Bromley’s conviction is overturned by the High Court, questions will arise about the prior knowledge of state officials (beyond that of the DPP (Director of Public Prosecutions HL) concerning this deplorable state of affairs. I have pointed out in my prior submissions to your predecessors, the principles which apply to the securing (or maintaining) of wrongful convictions on the basis of evidence known to be false and misleading. They refer to actions which are ‘an unspeakable outrage’ – ‘an extremely grave criminal offence’ and ‘a species of criminality at the extreme end of the spectrum of official corruption’ – see the briefing paper at p 23. I can only add that if you wish to maintain your present position, I trust that you have consulted with the insurers for the State of South Australia, as I have no doubt that this continuing conduct will have significant consequences for the future liabilities of the State in this and other cases in which Dr Manock was involved."
-------------------------------------------------------------------
LETTER: "Letter to South Australian Attorney General Kyam Maher from Prof. Robert Moles: Re: Bromley v The Queen (High Court of Australia;
GIST: "Thank you for your letter of 20 July 2022. I note that you state that “it is for Mr Bromley and the Director to run their arguments in the special leave application as they see fit.” I am sure you will agree, as chief law officer, that what is fit and proper conduct by the Crown must be within the constraints of our international human rights obligations (the duty to ensure an effective appeal) – the principles laid down in judgments of the High Court and the Court of Criminal appeal - and the duties set out in the DPP Code of Conduct. [These were referred to in Sangha and Moles, Miscarriages of Justice: Criminal Appeals and the Rule of Law, LexisNexis (2015) chapter 8 at 8.3 “Prosecutorial Duties”]. I have cited to you the duty set out by Justice Blue in the judgment in R v Keogh (No 2) [2015] SASC 180 where the headnote states “Held: 1. The prosecution owes to the court a duty of disclosure in respect of evidence of prosecution witnesses (at [54], [62]). [Emphasis added] I have informed you that the DPP in Mr Bromley’s case has indicated that he will not fulfil this duty in his submissions to the High Court in relation to the prior misconduct and lack of qualifications concerning Dr Manock and his evidence at Mr Bromley’s trial.1: 22 July 2022: by email NETWORKED KNOWLEDGE (ABN: BN 04056310) I think it is extremely important for you as chief law officer for the state of South Australia to be on notice of this anticipatory breach of duty by the Crown. In the event that Mr Bromley’s conviction is overturned by the High Court, questions will arise about the prior knowledge of state officials (beyond that of the DPP) concerning this deplorable state of affairs. I have pointed out in my prior submissions to your predecessors, the principles which apply to the securing (or maintaining) of wrongful convictions on the basis of evidence known to be false and misleading. They refer to actions which are ‘an unspeakable outrage’ – ‘an extremely grave criminal offence’ and ‘a species of criminality at the extreme end of the spectrum of official corruption’ – see the briefing paper at p 23. I can only add that if you wish to maintain your present position, I trust that you have consulted with the insurers for the State of South Australia, as I have no doubt that this continuing conduct will have significant consequences for the future liabilities of the State in this and other cases in which Dr Manock was involved. Yours sincerely, Dr Robert N Moles ACII (UK) LLB (Hons) (Belf) PhD (Edin) Adjunct Associate Professor (Business, Govt and Law) Flinders University Networked Knowledge."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
The entire letter can be read at:
http://netk.net.au/Manock/Manock43.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;
