Channel 7 - Today Tonight (Adelaide)
The Medical Board Inquiry [Dr Manock] 17 December 2003

This version of the transcript has been edited by Dr Robert N Moles

The Baby Deaths homepage
The Henry Keogh homepage
Article on Australian miscarriage of justice cases
Article on UK miscarriage of justice cases
Article on USA miscarriage of justice cases

In order of appearance

Leigh McCluskey
Derrick Pounder
Mike Rann Premier
Dr Bob Moles

Program

Leigh McCluskey:

The conduct of the State's former chief forensic pathologist, Dr Colin Manock who conducted around 10,000 autopsies over four decades has long been known for his controversial methods; but now the Medical Board will face a team of eminent interstate QCs who have expressed alarm at the way many criminal matters have been investigated in this state. Graham Archer has this report.

Derrick Pounder:

I work within the criminal justice system. I am a forensic pathologist, but yes, we can make mistakes and by facing up to those mistakes, we strengthen the system, we don't weaken it.

Graham Archer:

Justice is a great theory, the practice is entirely different, particularly in this state.

Mike Rann Premier:

I know what its about. They know what its about. Its about lawyers trying to defend lawyers rather than the public interest, and in my view amicus curiae, which apparently means friends of the court means enemy of the victims and it means enemy of the people of this state.

Graham Archer:

However, tomorrow is a day worth noting, because for the first time the Medical Board will hear complaints into the conduct of Dr Colin Manock, former head of the State's Forensic Science Centre.

Bob Moles:

The statutory responsibility of the Medical Board is to ensure that people are practicing to an appropriately high standard of practice.

Graham Archer:

Researchers, along with former Adelaide Uni law professor Bob Moles and a small team of lawyers have been trying for some years to have authorities undertake a proper inquiry into the qualifications and performance of the man who played a critical role in thousands of criminal investigations over thirty years.

Bob Moles:

For example, the Keogh case and the Van Beelen case, but the complaints have also cited some of the other cases such as the Baby Deaths cases in the early 90s in support of their complaints. So in all there will be about 15 cases that have been raised in these series of complaints.

Graham Archer:

Do you think that's the extent of the problem cases over the 30 years career of Dr Manock.

Bob Moles:

Well, I think that's highly unlikely. I think there's probably going to be many more cases. The point is of course, we don't have the extensive investigatory powers that the Medical Board has and so therefore, we haven't had the ability to go beyond the range of cases that have already been brought to our attention, but there's bound to be more I would say.

Graham Archer:

In fact there is already on the record official criticism of Dr Manock's work in the deaths of the three babies whom he said died of bronchial pneumonia while displaying clear signs of being battered to death, but no action has ever been taken.

Bob Moles:

The Coroner said that Dr Manock's report had achieved the opposite of its purpose, it had actually closed off investigations, instead of opening up lines of inquiry. The Coroner also said that Dr Manock had seen things which couldn't be seen, for example, signs of bronchopneumonia, and that some of his answers to the Coroner during the inquiry had been untruthful.

Graham Archer:

Did the Coroner, then having found that, make a complaint to the Medical Board?

Bob Moles:

Not as far as I know.

Graham Archer:

Well, did the Medical Board initiate any action?

Bob Moles:

No.

Graham Archer:

Even though this was well publicised?

Bob Moles:

Although the Registrar had the power to bring a complaint to his own Medical Board, he didn't in fact do so.

Graham Archer:

Quite the contrary, the Attorney General Michael Atkinson has attempted to defend and excuse Dr Manock by claiming he wasn't skilled with babies, whilst knowing full well his errors had nothing to do with the ages of the victims. No one was ever prosecuted as a result of those deaths?

Bob Moles:

Well, in fact, no investigations was really made into the deaths because as the police said at the time, how could we investigate the death if it is caused by broncho pneumonia.

Graham Archer:

We're also aware of other cases where Dr Manock has the time and cause of death hopelessly wrong, most extraordinarily, in the death of Gerald Warren.

Bob Moles:

When asked to explain the injuries to his hands and face he said that these were caused by the fabric of corduroy, his trousers, coming into contact with his hands and face.

Graham Archer:

Corduroy?

Bob Moles:

Corduroy trousers.

Graham Archer:

So what really happened?

Bob Moles:

The perpetrators said that they'd first of all taken him out of the vehicle, smacked him about the head and face with a metal pipe, with a thread on the end of it, then when he was on the ground, they drove a vehicle backwards \ over the top of his body and then forwards over the top of his body again.

Graham Archer:

But things got even more bizarre. When the matter came to court, to everyone's amazement, in the face of the confessions, Dr Manock still clung to his version of accidental death.

Counsel (voice over):

The possible cause that you gave for those marks on the back of Gerald's hands and face was the fabric of corduroy wasn't it?

Dr Manock (voice over):

Yes.

Counsel (voice over):

I take it that's still in your view a possible cause of those marks?

Dr Manock:

It would certainly produce a patterned mark.

Counsel (voice over):

So while you agree with my learned friend that those marks may have been caused, as she asked you to hypothesise, by the thread of a piece of iron, and you agreed that's consistent with that.

Dr Manock (voice over):

Yes,

Counsel (voice over):

But also consistent you would still say I think, with the pressure from the corduroy of the pants.

Dr Manock (voice over):

Yes.

Counsel (voice over):

You'd have no reason to resile from that view?

Dr Manock (voice over):

correct.

Acting Deputy Police Commissioner Dennis Edmonds:

If people outside the media have a concern, then they should express those concerns to the right people, to the right people in authority, and do it through the legal system, and take it from there.

Graham Archer:

Why should it be outside the media? What's the problem with the media raising these issues?

Acting Deputy Police Commissioner Dennis Edmonds:

Well, because quite often the media raise the issues when there in fact is not an issue, but it makes good media.

Graham Archer:

At one end, SA Police say miscarriages of justice are matters for the courts. A point Acting Deputy Police Commissioner Dennis Edmonds, emphasised when discussing the current policy of DNA testing of all of the State's prison population.

Acting Deputy Police Commissioner Dennis Edmonds:

We won't be going back over cases that are in our opinion resolved.

Graham Archer:

We asked SAPOL through the Assistant Commissioner if it was prepared to use this new technology to revisit the questionable forensics in the Frits Van Beelen rape and murder case, which hinged on Dr Manock's work. But the response was not promising.

Acting Deputy Police Commissioner Dennis Edmonds:

It would need to be through a court driven process, not through the media.

Graham Archer:

Despite this significant obstacle at the other end the Attorney General has been playing to the gallery claiming the DNA process is about justice for victims, unless of course you may be a victim of the justice system itself.

Graham Archer:

What effect might that have on those who've been perhaps wrongly convicted on the basis of the evidence that Dr Manock has given?

Bob Moles:

Well if in fact the Medical Board were to make a finding adverse to Dr Manock and to cancel or suspend his certificate to practice, then I would expect that there would be an immediate call for an inquiry into the cases in which he had appeared. Just as there has been in the United Kingdom.

Graham Archer:

So now it's the Medical Board's chance to fulfil its statutory obligation. Something it has strenuously avoided in the past. Even to the point of telling complainants that they have to do all the investigating themselves, when that's clearly the Board's job.

Bob Moles:

The one body with the powers to do that is the Medical Board so of course, we're hoping that they will in fact exercise their powers, have a proper investigation and ensure that the matter is properly sorted out.

Graham Archer:

To illustrate the level of concern, a team of interstate QCs including former Supreme Court judge John Nader QC, Tim Game QC and Tom Percy QC have agreed to join the legal team free of charge.

Bob Moles:

These are not the sort of people to do this sort of thing lightly. They're all very convinced that there is something quite wrong here that requires to be investigated and as yet, the Attorney General has shown a distinct unwillingness to even embark upon an inquiry.

Graham Archer:

Even the Premier has cottoned onto the clubbiness of the Criminal Bar in this State, though perhaps more for the political pantomime than genuine public interest.

Mike Rann Premier:

I want to send some messages to the criminal lawyers in this state that we mean business.

Graham Archer:

And when we revealed the disgraceful conduct of the Attorney General in excusing the errors and deficiencies in the Keogh case - in particular how he wrongly and slanderously attacked individuals who might be willing to speak out, and used threats to intimidate them, there will be serious alarm, and its all in print.

Bob Moles:

The Attorney General has shown a decided lack of interest in assisting with any sort of inquiry.

Graham Archer:

What we must hope for is that there are some men of goodwill out there, so that people have a merry Christmas and a more honourable new year.

Top of Page