|
Transcripts are not History
Unlike the custom in some other nations court transcripts in Australia are not
signed off by anyone as being a true and correct record of what took place.
At times what actually goes on in the Australian courtroom could have the
potential to cause public concern. But the courtroom is normally not reported on
much and thus only the persons present have knowledge about such things.
In the normal situation where a handful of lay people with concern over a case are
present surrounded by eminent legal professionals the history of a hearing will be
whatever the most senior legal professionals find it to be. Transcripts are only
available to the public after they have been passed through a system of approval.
Strict courtroom manners and expressing the utmost respect for the bench are
always to be present at pain of being found in contempt of court , which in NSW
is a summary offense heard by a judge which can thus result in imprisonment
without a jury trial for an indefinite period if the offender fails to retract.
In a case that had attracted a lot of publicity over a 20 year period the plaintiff a
Mr Barry Hart having lost his cross appeal then applied to the High Court of
Australia for Special Leave to Appeal to the High Court. An application seeking
Special Leave consists of a ten minute or so hearing. A large audience in the public
gallery included a number of news reporters and representatives of community
groups.
The the lay audience the defining point of the hearing was part-way through when
it became very clear to those in the gallery, from the nature and tone of a repeated
question from the bench to Hart's barrister, that the court would not be granting
Hart Special Leave.
When Hart's MP requested a copy of the transcript from the High Court of
Australia he discovered that the question and its repetition and response were
missing. On requesting the audio tape of the hearing he again discovered the
section had been removed, while the registrar of the High Court was insistent in a
letter that both the transcript and tape were unedited and complete records of
what had taken place.
Hart's MP obtained a number of statutory declarations from persons who had
been present in the public gallery and then made a statement under parliamentary
privilege. As may have been expected in NSW over such matters nothing followed
from this. Part of what Mr Hart's MP said as recorded by Hansard is as follows:
727 GOVERNOR'S SPEECH: ADDRESS-IN-REPLY 14 October 1997 ASSEMBLY 7I27
Mr DEPUTY-SPEAKER: Order! I acknowledge the presence in the gallery of Mr Mike
Carlton and Mr Steve Chase and their staff. The cream of the Australian Broadcasting
Corporation is with us.
Mr ROGAN (East Hills) [9.09 p.m.]: I congratulate the Governor on his Speech, which
outlined the Government's programs for this session of Parliament. ...
...
Accountability is essential for the Parliament, for government, for government
agencies, for police, teachers and public servants, for the business sector, and for
unions and non-government organisations which operate within our society. In
retrospect, every decade is characterised by momentous events, public attitudes and
lasting reflections. The decade of the 1980s was characterised by greed, by Gordon
Gecko immortalised by Michael Douglas in the movie Wall Street, by the rip-tear-bust
attitude of business, by debt at any price, and by a complete lack of accountability.
We have not yet reached the end of this decade, but I will make some observations
about what might be said by commentators, writers and philosophers, who will go
into reflective overdrive when that milestone is reached. Certainly this decade will be
known for responsibility and accountability. However, we have a little over two years
to implement measures to ensure that one section of society-a very important one
which hitherto has remained immune from the strictures of accountability, the
judiciary, is made accountable. Legislation and regulation ensure controls over the
groups I referred to previously. They are held to account by those to whom they are
responsible and, at the end of the day, by our community.
I agree with the doctrine of separation of powers and with the importance of
maintaining that doctrine, but the appalling saga which I shall now relate to this House
is, I believe, one of the reasons for the strong community disillusionment,
disenchantment and at times outright anger at the perceived arrogance and
out-of-touch attitude that is increasingly being displayed by the State's and nation's
judiciary. We are now facing a collapse in faith in our judicial system which is in
danger of destroying the very fibre of our democratic society. Honourable members
would be aware of my many speeches in this House as a result of which the media
highlighted the injustice suffered by Chelmsford victim Barry Hart. Barry Hart was not
only tortured in Chelmsford hospital, resulting in physical damage, brain damage and
severe and chronic psychological damage, but has had to fight for justice and fair and
adequate compensation for the wrongs committed against him for 24 years through
what can only be described as the most oppressive, maleficent and inhuman
treatment imaginable by the legal system.
Justice Michael Kirby, the then Chairman of the Law Reform Commission, said in 1983
that Hart's story brought no great credit on the legal profession of this country. I now
accuse the judiciary and the legal profession of this State of corrupting due process,
of incompetence, bias and a conspiracy to deny Barry Hart natural justice. It is my
duty to speak out about the appalling injustice that the legal system of this country has
done to this man, a victim of the Chelmsford Private Hospital hellhole. I cannot remain
silent when an innocent man has been destroyed by our so-called justice system.
Honourable members may be familiar with the ABC television program run by senior
barrister Stuart Littlemore called Media Watch, in which he pans the media for
inaccurate reporting. Who watches the courts? Who judges the courts? Judges
should not attempt to rewrite history. Court judgments are public records and as such
must accurately record the evidence and facts upon which judgments are based.
Court transcripts must also be true and accurate records of evidence given in court.
The Hart case is an indictment of this country's legal system. The innocent victim in
this case is destroyed and the guilty go free. It is a disgraceful state of affairs.
There is no doubt that Barry Hart was tortured in Chelmsford. He has had all the
symptoms of severe, chronic, post-traumatic stress disorder, and has had them since
his unlawful detention and abuse in 1973. He was not medically diagnosed as
suffering from this debilitating psychiatric illness until 1993. Indeed, Mr Hart was seen
on national television being carried from the New South Wales Court of Appeal on a
stretcher on 6 June last year after it had completely denied him justice and dismissed
his appeal with costs-the same Court of Appeal that had in 1986 stopped disciplinary
proceedings against Dr Herron for misconduct by claiming that Hart was persecuting
Dr Herron and had allegedly abused the process by delaying making a complaint to the
medical board. Dr Herron was a leading doctor in the deep-sleep treatment at
Chelmsford.
Mr Hart was taken to Sydney Hospital by ambulance, where he had convulsions in a
bed in its casualty ward, reliving the abuse he suffered in Chelmsford. The shock of
the decision and finding himself in a bed in a hospital brought about this reaction. The
abuse he suffered in Chelmsford is as fresh to Mr Hart as if it had happened only
yesterday. Mr Hart has received no legal recognition and no compensation for this
serious illness. At the time of the 1980 Hart v Herron trial, post-traumatic stress
disorder was not a recognised psychiatric illness. Mr Hart appealed the 1980 trial
verdict on damages, claiming that the amount of damages awarded was grossly
inadequate and that exemplary damages which were withdrawn by the trial judge,
Justice Fisher, should also have been awarded. He had received a jury verdict
against Dr Herron for false imprisonment, assault and battery and negligence, and
against Chelmsford hospital for false imprisonment.
After refusing to consent to any treatment, Mr Hart made a request to see Dr Herron,
whom he had not seen for two months. He told a nurse he did not intend to stay at the
hospital and was given a tablet on the pretence that it would settle him down. It
knocked him out. He was strapped down and kept sedated for 10 days with massive
amounts of barbiturate in toxic and potentially fatal doses. A current of electricity was
blasted into his brain on six occasions by Dr Herron. Whilst being subjected to this
abuse Barry Hart became cyanosed through a lack of oxygen in his blood. His
temperature rose to 39.9 degrees, his respiratory rate increased from 16 to 50
breaths per minute, and his pulse rose to 150.
He went into shock, was incontinent of urine and faeces and suffered double
pneumonia, pleurisy, deep vein thrombosis, a pulmonary embolism, anoxic brain
damage and severe and chronic post-traumatic stress disorder. For the false
imprisonment Mr Hart received against both defendants the total sum of not $1 million
dollars, not even $100,000, but $6,000. His out-of-pocket legal expenses, none of
which he recovered, were more than that amount. He received $18,000 for the
repeated assaults and batteries, which was taken by legal aid. It now claims that Hart
owes it $150,000 in costs. He received $36,000 for past and future loss of earnings.
Hart had never been unemployed since leaving school. Before Chelmsford he ran a
gymnasium at Coogee Beach for 13 years, was a professional model, and had just
graduated as the best student in an acting course at the New South Wales Arts
Council. He had been told by his teacher to continue his studies in New York with one
of the world's best acting teachers, Stella Adler. He bought with his savings a home
unit at Bondi Beach, land at Surfers Paradise and new motor vehicles. The
Chelmsford injuries made Hart virtually unemployable. He now lives on a disability
pension. Appeals by Dr Herron and Chelmsford wanting a new trial-they also claimed
that the damages were excessive-and cross appeals by Hart on the amount of
damages awarded and an adverse cost judgment which deprived him of over half the
costs of the 1980 trial followed the jury verdict. There were 48 appeal points against
the trial judge, Justice Fisher, including failing to adequately address the jury on how
to assess damages.
Justice Fisher took the view when addressing the jury that Hart's treatment was an
unfortunate minor incident that had resulted in no permanent damage and that the trial
was a waste of time and money and of limited importance. He took issue with three
independent medical specialists who had all diagnosed brain damage, but he made no
comment about the fact that Dr Herron could not get one medical practitioner in the
world to go to court in his defence. Justice Fisher brought down a judgment in the
absence of the jury, preventing the giving of evidence by witnesses to whom Mr Hart
had complained bitterly over and again about being tricked into taking a knock-out drop
and being treated without consent.
After Justice Fisher had excluded the evidence as being prejudicial he became an
advocate for the defendants and invited the jury to consider in their deliberations the
fact that Hart had allegedly not complained to anyone about being tricked or held
against his will. He frustrated Hart's barrister's attempt to have a witness for the
defendants-who claimed that Hart had given an alleged oral consent to the
treatment-identify Hart in court. He made Hart stand up and come forward so that
witnesses could identify him. Mr Paul Bacon, a former jury member at the 1980 Hart
trial, contacted me in recent times. The concerns that he outlined to me include:
1. The jury sat for nearly 4 months with complex evidence to consider and yet it was
expected to reach a verdict within six hours.
2. There was no mention of any time limit when the jury retired to consider its verdict
and some jurors had, on the final day of summation, brought sleeping attire with them
believing that they would have days if necessary to consider their verdict on all
matters concerning damages.
3. About 4 hours passed before an officer of the court came into the jury room to
inform them they would be dismissed if they did not reach a verdict soon.
4. As a consequence the foreman had the time limit confirmed by the trial judge and as
a result considerable disbelief and panic occurred resulting in a totally inadequate
amount of damages being awarded.
That statement was made by Mr Bacon, a person who served on the jury. He also
said:
5. The jury were also guided by the judge informing them that any moneys would be
paid by the defendant and not by his insurance and that they should ignore Mr Hart's
barrister's estimation of loss of earnings as being unrealistic and that they must be
guided by his direction.
6. The jury was understandably confused. Despite evidence from 3 medical
specialists that Hart had suffered brain damage and despite the fact that the
defendants had called no medical witnesses the judge told them that Hart was
physically healthy and not particularly brain damaged.
7. Had the jury known about the criminal conduct in the trial by the defendants that
came out of the Royal Commission and the evidence of the psychological damage I
feel quite sure that had they been given the opportunity to do so the jury would have
awarded astronomical damages.
The juror, Mr Bacon, believes that his good faith has been abused. He is utterly
disillusioned by the legal system and he wants the Hart case corrected. The jury
foreman, the late Ray Ratcliffe, also recorded the fact that the jury was underbriefed,
was pushed for time and had little idea how to work out damages. Updated medical
examinations and reports have confirmed that Hart suffered brain damage and severe
chronic post-traumatic stress disorder as a result of the treatment he received at
Chelmsford. Armed with this damning evidence from the $15 million Chelmsford royal
commission which found:
1. The defendants had conspired to pervert the course of justice.
2. Altered and forged an unsigned consent form on two occasions to hide from Mr
Hart's solicitors and their own insurance company the fact that they had not received
a written consent to treatment from Mr Hart.
3. That Dr Herron had deliberately lied about his knowledge of the alteration of the
consent form.
4. That Dr Herron had threatened one of the eye witness nurses to the
conspiracy-that she would "hang along with them".
The New South Wales Court of Appeal, in a disgraceful decision, chose to ignore this
vital evidence. Honourable members might rightly think that the evidence from the royal
commission tends to show at the very least prima facie evidence of the most serious
criminal conduct. Certainly Justice Slattery thought so in his report. Not so Justice
Priestley who wrote the judgment in the Court of Appeal which described the
evidence in the royal commission-which I might add included the sworn evidence of
eye witness nurses, the sworn evidence of police forensic expert Detective
Sergeant Alt, copies of the forged document and the evidence of Dr Herron from the
1980 trial. He described this evidence as only supporting a conclusion that Dr Herron
acted badly in 1977 in concert with others when dealing with a situation where no
written consent to the appellant's treatment was available at a time when questions
were being raised about the treatment. [Extension of time agreed to.]
Justice Priestley went on to say:
"Evidence of concealment of the lack of written consent and of
conduct designed to create the impression of written consent having
been given in the regular way does not seem to me to be evidence of
consciousness by Dr Herron of no consent at all having been given
but at most consciousness of no written consent not having been
given and of the difficulties that might follow the unavailability of that
best and readiest means of proof."
What kind of judicial nonsense is that?
The evidence before the court also included the fact that Dr Herron had deliberately
lied about his knowledge of the alteration. Justice Priestley said that all that had
happened was that this doctor had acted badly. It appears that the New South Wales
Court of Appeal was in a bind. In 1986 it had permanently stayed proceedings against
Dr Herron arising out of evidence from the 1980 trial on the grounds that Hart had
allegedly abused the process by delaying lodging a complaint with the investigating
committee of the medical board for three years after the 1980 trial. Despite the fact
that Dr Herron had appealed wanting a new trial following the jury verdict, despite the
fact that he tried to get the Attorney General to take contempt of court proceedings
against Hart and 60 Minutes; and despite the fact that Dr Herron had sued Hart and
Channel 9 for defamation, the New South Wales Court of Appeal claims that nothing
happened following the trial, that "silence reigned" after the trial and that it must have
been "a cruel blow" to Dr Herron to have received Hart's complaint when he thought
that the events were behind him. The matter of the abuse of process was heard in
the first instance by Judge Ward of the disciplinary tribunal. After a two-week hearing
in June 1986 in which both Hart and Dr Herron gave evidence, he found that there
had been no delay by Hart. Judge Ward quoted the continual litigation between Hart
and Herron in support of his findings. Although the Ward judgment was before the
Court of Appeal, there is no mention of Judge Ward's finding in its judgment. The
judgment was written by Justice Michael McHugh, and Justice Priestley and Justice
Street agreed. After permanently staying disciplinary proceedings on the totally
spurious grounds that nothing happened after the 1980 trial, along comes a royal
commission with evidence of the most serious criminal conduct by the defendants.
The Court of Appeal was placed in the position of not only having to judge the same
matter twice; Justice Priestley was in the position of judging his own previous
decision. In order to allow Hart to succeed in his appeal he and the Court of Appeal
would have had to overturn his own previous judgment. Not only had the court before
it evidence of serious criminal conduct; such behaviour by a medical practitioner I
believe would have constituted the most serious professional misconduct. The legal
and political fallout from such a decision would be great, hence I believe the
nonsensical decision that evidence of criminal conduct is, in the court's view, "acting
badly". Justice Priestley at the very least should have excused himself and stood
down from hearing the case. The Court of Appeal dismissed Hart's appeal with costs.
It also claimed that it had read the transcript and the evidence and could find no error
in the trial judge's conduct.On 10 April this year Hart applied for special leave to the
High Court. The written submission to the High Court summarised the abuse Hart had
suffered in Chelmsford, including his unlawful detention at the hospital and treatment
without consent. It claimed, among other things, that the evidence from the royal
commission proved that a false case had been presented to the court in 1980 by the
defendants and that, as such, a miscarriage of justice had occurred, which was
reflected in the amount of damages awarded. Also it claimed that the Court of Appeal
had failed to properly, or at all, address the compelling evidence from the royal
commission and the untenable forensic position of Dr Herron at a new trial on
damages and exemplary damages. Listed in the submission was all the evidence of
the defendant's criminal conduct and the witnesses who could be called to prove the
case.
The special leave application was dismissed with costs on the grounds that it would
be "a serious erroneous exercise of the court's authority for it to allow Mr Hart to
pursue exemplary damages so long after the trial". It is an outrageous decision
considering that the evidence of the criminal activity did not see the light of day until
the royal commission in 1990, and Mr Hart has been continually engaged in litigation
with Dr Herron ever since the trial ended. The High Court has placed its seal of
approval on medical practitioners being sued for malpractice to alter and change
medical records to hide their culpability, to tell lies under oath about their knowledge of
such alteration and to engage in long and protracted legal proceedings, such as
appeals and defamation actions that are never proceeded with, to delay the truth from
being discovered and justice being done.
What is going on? There is obviously something very wrong. I have received letters,
statements and statutory declarations from persons who were present at the High
Court proceedings on 10 April which indicate that the High Court was biased and had
no intention of granting Hart special leave. These documents claim that one of the
three judges on the bench-and I am led to believe that it was Justice Toohey-said in
the most intimidating tone of voice to Mr Hart's counsel during his oral address, "Is this
a case about punishing a doctor?" There was no audible reply but there was audible
murmur in the court from those who were present.
The written submission which the bench claims to have read left no doubt what the
case was about. The witnesses claim that from the tone of voice it appeared that the
bench had already made up its mind and that it disapproved of the case.
However, the question does not appear in the High Court transcript. After receiving
eye witness accounts and a copy of the transcript I wrote to the registrar of the court
pointing out that I had been informed by my constituent Barry Hart that the transcript
of the hearing was not correct and that it was important that court transcripts should
be correct and accurately recorded. In my letter of 9 May to the registrar I said:
My constituent, Mr. Barry Hart, the appellant in the case has informed
me that the transcript of the hearing is not correct.
It is the clear memory of Mr. Hart and others who were present and
have made statements (copies enclosed) that a direct question was
asked to Mr. Hart's Counsel by one of the judges on the bench-it
would appear that it was Justice Toohey-the question being:
"Is this a case about punishing a doctor?"
The question does not appear in the transcript.
It was apparently asked early in the proceedings and was reported
on by the press and heard by persons attending court.
I am led to believe that the proceedings were tape recorded and I
would be pleased if you would provide me with an unabridged copy
of the tape.
I am sure that you would agree that transcript evidence should be
correct and what is said accurately recorded.
I very promptly received a letter from the Chief Executive and Principal Registrar of the
High Court of Australia. I will not read the whole letter. He said:
There were no omissions. In your letter you refer specifically to one of the judges
making reference to punishing a doctor. There are in fact two places in the transcript
where a reference to punishment occurs. First, in lines 14 and 15 at page 9 ...
Second, lines 7 and 8 at page 12 . . . A copy of the audio tape of proceedings is
enclosed.
I now make the most serious assertion in this Parliament that one can make of the
highest court of this land. That is that this is simply wrong. The High Court has either
doctored the transcript or the audio tape and, if that is the case, the High Court of this
land has lied to a member of Parliament of this State. I consider that is the most
serious matter that I have ever raised in this House in all of the time that I have been a
member here. I am now going to refer to the House a number of statutory declarations
made by people on oath who were present on that day. I start with one by television
ABC journalist Geoff Sims, who states in his statutory declaration:
I attended a High Court appeal in Sydney on 10th April 1997 in the
case of Hart against Herron. I sat in the third row of the Press
seating.I recall hearing one of the judges ask a question in these
words, or very similar: Is this a case about punishing a doctor?
The question was apparently addressed to Mr Hart's counsel in
regard to the claim for exemplary damages against Dr Herron, but
may have been addressed to the fellow judges. The judge asking the
question sat on the left of the Chief Judge, Sir Gerard Brennan-in
other words, from where I sat, he was on my right. I remember the
incident clearly. I discussed it with several other witnesses
afterwards. We all had similar recollections.
The tone in which the question was asked led me to conclude that
the judge was suggesting that punishing a doctor should not be
contemplated.
And I make this solemn declaration, in accordance with the Oaths
Act, 1900, and subject to the punishment by law provided for the
making of any wilfully false statement in any such declaration.
I have a whole lot of other statutory declarations which I could read to this House but
time does not permit me to do so. But I am pleased and happy to provide them to
anyone in this House who wants to pursue them. This is an absolutely serious matter
when the High Court of this land has lied to a member of Parliament taking up a matter
on behalf of his constituent. Why has the High Court lied? I believe it is clear evidence
of bias. I regret the conclusion that must be drawn that judges talk to each other.
Justice McHugh, who was on the appeal court when dealing with Barry Hart's case,
was a High Court judge and perhaps talked to other judges. Justice Priestley, who sat
in judgment on Hart in early 1986 and sat in judgment again on Hart's appeal in 1989,
should have excused himself from the court, as did Justice Kirby when he heard a
case against Hart in the appeal court because he had written to Hart when he was
heading up the law commission in this State.
This is a very serious matter. I believe it does show clear bias. The only way that
justice will be satisfied, that I believe the public will be satisfied in this case, is if this
case is revisited. I have asked that of the Attorney General in a written submission
that I have made to him. In summing up I say this. Justices McHugh, Priestley and
Street in 1986 claimed that nothing happened following the 1980 trial, that silence
reigned, that it must have been a cruel blow to Dr Herron to receive Hart's complaint in
1983 when he thought the matter was behind him. Nothing about the problems of Mr
Hart; they were ignored. They ignored the evidence before them from Justice Ward,
who found that there had been no delay on Hart's part because of Dr Herron's
appeal, Hart's court appeal, the defamation case against Hart and Channel 9, and the
writing to the Attorney General regarding 60 Minutes. In 1996 the appeal court had
heard Hart's appeal, including the new evidence from the royal commission which the
royal commission said could constitute charges under the Crimes Act and which
counsel assisting, Brian Donovan, QC, called criminal and evidence of the guilty mind.
Of course, now, in light of the appeal court, the judge has heard the same matter
twice and rejected exemplary damages. Hart has really not received proper justice. Dr
Herron could have been struck off for such conduct. How could all of this be found
when they stayed permanently the proceedings based on completely spurious fiction
that nothing had allegedly happened in the Hart case after 1980? These are serious
matters and I believe they are matters that go to the heart of the public confidence in
the court system. [Time expired.]
This case was one that had caused a Government Minister to make a statement
about the people who had suffered such torture at the hands of government
employees, such as Dr Herron who was a Medical Superintendent at a state
psychiatric hospital. Mr Hart had been a critic of the government over what had
happened to him. A decade before the then Minister for Health was reported as taking
a stand over the matter in opposition to the victims as follows:
19 May 1988 Sydney Morning Herald: Reporter: Tracey Aubin
Deep-sleep inquiry ruled out
The State Government has ruled out a public inquiry into the Chelmsford
Private Hospital and will not make ex gratia payments to victims because
compensation would cost $40 million. The Minister for Health, Mr Collins,
told Parliament yesterday that his department had to accept responsibility for
the failure to address complaints of a decade ago, but that the Government
could not afford to compensate the 2,000 victims of deep-sleep therapy. … Mr
Collins also confirmed that three doctors involved in the deep-sleep
treatment, Drs Herron, Gardiner and Gill, were still practising. … A member of
the Chelmsford Victims' Action Group, Mr Barry Hart, 52, who was at
Chelmsford Hospital in 1973, described Mr Collins's action as disgraceful.
Mr Hart was the first victim to start complaining and so became a spokesperson for
other victims and an irritant for government. His case was very much a test case that
would determine the legal fate of many other victims' cases and the compensation
costs that government would have to face.
Government could have been viewed as a party to the many deaths because its own
NSW Health Commission (later changed into the NSW Health Department to provide
more accountability), the regulator of Chelmsford Hospital, had by its inaction given
the green light for many years to what the doctors were doing.
Government never chose to open a path to criminal action against the doctors.Thus
very serious crimes exposed by the 1988-90 Royal Commission, such as falsifying
death certificates and misleading coroner's courts, were never followed up.
By the 1990's the attitude of "NSW Inc." towards Mr Hart had become very clear. It
was impossible for him to obtain advocacy in a NSW court room. His instructions to
counsel were being ignored, so preventing his views and medical evidence of the
human rights abuse and his resultant long term disability getting onto the official court
record.
With the massive exposure following the Royal Commission Report in 1990 overseas
media finally got interested. At long last this seems to have caused a reaction from
Government. Chelmsford victims then did get some limited compensation via a
backroom deal struck between the doctor's insurers and the NSW Health
Department. The victims were very surprised to get 2 cheques, one being from the
NSW Health Department who they did not even know had been joined to the
settlement.
However in Hart's case this limited compensation did not even pay the court costs
heaped on him by the trial judge for wasting the court's time. Hart, poverty stricken
and deeply in debt, only survived at all because his disability was accepted as being
real by virtue of tests by the Social Security Department. He thus qualified for a
disability pension.
Had Mr Hart been allowed to get due process at law, and hence reasonable
compensation for what had been done to him, his case would have set the standard
for payouts in the many other cases and so led to a massive multimillion payout for
government. But exercise of judicial discretion had stopped critical medical reports
being allowed into evidence, on grounds of such medical evidence being prejudicial to
the doctors' defence.
The destruction of Mr Hart's case in the courts saved government a very large amount
of money.
Mr Hart's 20 year long legal saga demonstrates the true nature of 'due process at law'
in NSW.
ONE VOICE - ONE PEOPLE is an independent, non-party-political, non-profit
organisation committed to defend human rights and fundamental freedoms and to contribute
to the promotion and advancement of democratic societies, institutions and processes
Back
(C) One Voice One People. Last updated: June 2000 |
