Networked Knowledge - Media Report

Channel 7 Today Tonight Adelaide - the Medical Board of South Australia and the case of Henry Keogh

Thursday 24 January 2008

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

Paul Makin: Presenter
Graham Archer: Producer and Interviewer
Dr Bob Moles: Author and researcher
Professor Kent Roach: Research Director, Goudge Judicial Inquiry, Canada.

Program

Paul Makin: Tonight we can reveal for the very first time that the South Australian Medical Board has taken the very serious step of lodging a Complaint against Dr Colin Manock for unprofessional conduct in relation to his work on the case of Henry Keogh. The Complaint which was lodged with the Medical Tribunal comes after an almost 7 year battle to have Dr Manock's autopsy of Anna Cheney properly assessed. The Board's Complaint adds official weight to the claims that the autopsy findings in the case were hopelessly flawed and the observations made, impossible to substantiate. Graham Archer with this special report.

Graham Archer: Now you've read the document what do you think?

Dr Bob Moles: By and large they are the propositions we put to the Medical Board six and a half years ago.  

Graham Archer: if it hadn't been for the tortured history of the Henry Keogh case, this sudden and stunning development might be seen as a break through.

There have been a great deal of games played to keep the lid on this haven't there?

Dr Bob Moles: Oh it's quite extraordinary and totally inappropriate.

Graham Archer: But assuming there is some good faith and some notion of justice in our public institutions, the current Medical Board's landmark decision to lodge their own complaint of unprofessional conduct against Dr Colin Manock based on his autopsy in the Keogh case might just rewrite South Australian history, at last. Author Dr Bob Moles has followed the case closely.

Dr Bob Moles: I've never had any doubt we would reach this stage. I'm just terribly disappointed it taken so long and the hurt that people have suffered as a result of the injustices that have been done have simply been prolonged for six and a half years unnecessarily.

Graham Archer: What's more, presuming there's no catches, the complaint now before the Medical Tribunal, the state's most senior medical watchdog is put in the most forceful terms; describing Dr Manock's works in the autopsy of Anna Jane Cheney as so sub-standard as to render any substantiation of his observations as "impossible".

Is that, at last, somewhere near an official acknowledgement of how serious this is?

Dr Bob Moles: Absolutely. That's what we have said all along. That there has been no sufficient examination of the body; of the alternative explanations. As Dr Thomas put in his affidavit to the Board, we just don't know the cause of death and it cannot now be established.

Graham Archer: the Board complaint goes on, in equally trenchant terms:

"(he) failed to collect and retain adequate tissue and other body samples ... to enable adequate and proper histological examination.."
And there's more ...
"He failed to consider and to exclude all reasonable and feasible alternative hypotheses ... as to the cause and manner of death."

Dr Bob Moles: What they are saying really is, he simply didn't do the job he was supposed to do.  

Graham Archer: In the laying of this Complaint, does It mark an enormous change from the work of the previous Medical Board?

Dr Bob Moles: Absolutlely, because we put this very complaint to the previous Medical Board and they came up with the judgement that the Complaint could not be upheld.  

Graham Archer: And then the Supreme Court found that they'd used the wrong test for unprofessional conduct?

Dr Bob Moles: That's right. I don’t understand how a Medical Board could use the wrong test for unprofessional conduct because it's the most central point they have to examine.

Graham Archer: From here, the Board Complaint is to be heard by the Medical Tribunal, a body which operates at the level of the District Court.

What action can the Tribunal take if this Complaint is up held?

Dr Bob Moles: Well the most fundamental action they could take is to strike off Dr Manock after the complaint is upheld. There are some financial provisions whereby they can impose a financial penalty, but the main point, perhaps, is to simply have a recognition that he didn't do his job properly.

Graham Archer: While this process is entirely separate from any court action Keogh himself is pursuing, inevitably, if the autopsy process, as the Board now contends, "failed to consider all reasonable and alternative hypothesis ... as to the cause and manner of death." it must call into question the forensic evidence upon which the charges against him were based?

Dr Bob Moles: It would fundamentally undermine the nature of the conviction. And there's no conflict between the two - and this should be understood - that the proceedings in the Medical Board are complementary to the proceedings in the Court.

Graham Archer: The gulf between the CSI TV version of forensic pathology and the reality couldn't be wider. As we've reported for over a decade, questions have been raised in the UK, the USA and most recently Canada, about the damage done by pathologists playing the role of Sherlock Holmes instead of objective scientists.

Professor Kent Roach: I think in my country, Canada, we've now had about 7 or 8 public inquiries into wrongful convictions. So I thought people accept they do happen and what we've got to do is to put more effort into preventing them and finding remedies when they do happen.

Graham Archer: The tragic case of Dr Smith who misdiagnosed the deaths of numerous babies has caused a scandal in Canada.

Report from Canadian Television: Convicted in 1994 of the rape and murder of his four year old niece, partly on the evidence of doctor Smith. He was eventually released after a review found the toddler died of natural causes. Mullins-Johnson: I hope you understand nothing was done to my niece, not by me and not by anybody else.

Graham Archer: Similar tragedies have been unearthed in the UK in a series of cases where numerous wrongful convictions have occurred based on pathologists’ speculations. The difference between here and those other places is they've acted to correct the damage. Canadian lawyer Kent Roach's brief is to ensure these cases are not only remedied but prevented from re-occurring.  

Professor Kent Roach: Part of the mandate is to make systemic recommendations to help restore public confidence in paediatric pathology.

Graham Archer: It appears that the Medical Board has at last grasped the seriousness of the evidence against Dr Manock's autopsy findings. And while, as we've said, this is quite separate from Keogh's court challenges, where Dr Manock's evidence in the case has been argued to be fraudulent, it must add enormous official weight to the argument that a serious injustice has been committed?

Dr Bob Moles: Well it's the first time that we've had some official recognition of the validity of the claims that we've been putting forward. We've already been quite confident of the claims that we have made in the various complaints, and they have been supported in the sworn affidavits from eminent experts from around Australia and overseas. But this is the first time that there has been official recognition of the validity of our claims in South Australia.

Top of Page