IN THE MEDICAL BOARD OF SOUTH AUSTRALIA

AT ADELAIDE 21 April 2005 MEDICAL PRACTITIONERS ACT 1983

In the matter of a Complaint pursuant to section 54 of the Medical Practitioners Act 1983 made by Henry Vincent Keogh [The Complainant] alleging unprofessional conduct on the part of Colin Henry Manock and Ross Alexander James.

[This edited version of the report has been prepared by Dr Robert N Moles
Underlining where it occurs is for editorial emphasis]

See also the Amended Complaint 18 November 2004
Henry Keogh homepage
Article: Australian law on miscarriages of justice
Article: UK law on miscarriages of justice
Article: USA law on miscarriages of justice

Further Complaint

This Further Complaint is in addition to the Amended Complaint by the Complainant which is currently before the Medical Board of South Australia.

Preliminary Matters

The Complainant Henry Vincent Keogh is a person who is aggrieved by the conduct of the Medical Practitioners Colin Henry Manock and Ross Alexander James within the meaning of sub paragraph 54(1)(d) of the Medical Practitioners Act 1983 because, among other things, in or about 1994 the Medical Practitioners made incorrect assessments and drew incorrect conclusions concerning the death of one Anna Jane Cheney, which assessments and conclusions involved the Complainant. The Complainant is presently serving a term of imprisonment for the murder of Anna Jane Cheney. That conviction was based upon circumstantial evidence including evidence given by the said Medical Practitioners.

Unprofessional Conduct

The Complainant alleges that Colin Henry Manock’s and Ross Alexander James’ conduct in relation to the practice of medicine has been at relevant times:
(a) Improper and / or unethical
(b) Incompetent and / or negligent
within the meaning and the definition of “unprofessional conduct” contained in sub section 5(1) of the Medical Practitioners Act 1983.

Application to refer to Tribunal

The Complainant seeks that this Further Complaint be laid before the Medical Practitioners Professional Conduct Tribunal by the Medical Board of South Australia pursuant to section 58 of the Medical Practitioners Act 1983 it being a matter of sufficient seriousness and involving  significant issues of public interest such as to warrant it being referred to the Tribunal.

Particulars of Unprofessional Conduct

Colin Henry Manock

First Particular

Colin Henry Manock gave sworn evidence at the Second Trial of the Complainant. In that evidence he stated that when he looked at histological slides through the microscope, which slides were said to contain tissue taken from bruises on the left leg of the deceased, all the bruises appeared to be the same.

Second Particular

Colin Henry Manock subsequently gave sworn evidence before the Medical Board of South Australia. In that evidence he said, in relation to those slides, that when he looked at them through the microscope, the mark said to have been a bruise on the inner side of the left leg, was different in appearance to the tissue in the other slides.

Third Particular

In his sworn evidence to the Medical Board of South Australia Colin Henry Manock stated that he was aware by the end of the first week after the autopsy that the sample of tissue, said to have been taken from the medial side of the left leg of the deceased, failed to show microscopical evidence of bruising.

Fourth Particular

The evidence that Colin Henry Manock gave to the jury at the Second Trial of the Complainant about the appearance of the said slides was inconsistent or incomplete in a material particular with the evidence given to the Medical Board.

Fifth Particular

Colin Henry Manock has and has had a professional obligation to reveal all of the material facts of the case concerning the Complainant. In the course of giving his evidence at the Second Trial of the Complainant, he failed to do so.

Sixth Particular

Colin Henry Manock’s failure to reveal the true appearance of the tissue said to have come from the mark on the inner side of the left leg was improper and unethical within the meaning and the definition of unprofessional conduct referred to.

Seventh Particular

Colin Henry Manock’s failure to acknowledge to the Medical Board of South Australia that the sworn evidence he gave at the Second Trial of the Complainant was inconsistent or incomplete in a material particular constitutes improper and unethical conduct within the meaning and definition of unprofessional conduct referred to.

Eighth Particular

Colin Henry Manock’s failure to explain to the Medical Board of South Australia the reasons for the inconsistency or incompleteness in a material particular in the sworn evidence he gave at the Second Trial of the Complainant constitutes improper and unethical conduct within the meaning and definition of unprofessional conduct referred to.

Ninth  Particular

In his sworn evidence to the Medical Board of South Australia Colin Henry Manock stated that he failed to inform the Director of Public Prosecutions of South Australia that the sample of tissue, said to have been taken from the medial side of the left leg of the deceased, failed to show any microscopical evidence of bruising. That failure to disclose a material particular constituted improper and unethical conduct within the meaning and definition of unprofessional conduct referred to.

Tenth Particular

The Director of Public Prosecutions at the Second Trial of the Complainant informed the jury that the marks, said to have been bruises upon the left leg of the deceased, were all made at the same time and were therefore the one positive indication of murder.

That submission by the Director of Public Prosecutions was based upon the sworn evidence which had been given by Colin Henry Manock, and was known or should have been known by Colin Henry Manock, at the time at which he gave that evidence, to be incorrect.

Eleventh Particular

Colin Henry Manock completed a witness statement on 29 April 1994 in which he stated the observations and the inferences which he made following upon the autopsy on the body of the deceased. That witness statement contains the following clause:
”This statement, consisting of 9 pages signed by me, is true to the best of my knowledge and belief.
I understand that if this statement is filed in court for the purposes of a prosecution pursuant to Section 104 of the Summary Procedure Act and it is, to my knowledge false or misleading in a material particular, I am guilty of an offence pursuant to the provisions of the Summary Procedure Act.”

Twelfth Particular

That statement was filed in court for the purposes of a prosecution in relation to the Complainant.

Thirteenth Particular

That statement was completed some 42 days after the autopsy. Colin Henry Manock failed to disclose in that statement that microscopical examination of the tissue from the medial side of the left leg of the deceased had not substantiated that it was a bruise.

Fourteenth Particular

His failure to disclose the details of that finding in his witness statement meant that it was false or misleading in a material particular.

Fifteenth Particular

In his witness statement of 29 April 1994 Colin Henry Manock stated as follows:
”… nor was there any difference between the bruises to the head and those to the limbs.”

Sixteenth Particular

In his evidence to the Medical Board of South Australia Colin Henry Manock has maintained and still maintains that the bruises to the head were supported by histological examination, and that the purported bruise to the medial side of the left leg was not so supported.

Seventeenth Particular

If Colin Henry Manock was aware of that difference at the time of the completion of his witness statement then his failure to disclose that fact meant that his statement was false or misleading in a material particular.

Eighteenth Particular

If Colin Henry Manock was not aware of that difference at the time of the completion of his witness statement then his assertion that there was no difference between the bruises to the head and those to the limbs was false or misleading in a material particular.

Nineteenth Particular

Colin Henry Manock is not excused from complying with his professional obligation on the basis that he did not think it to be particularly relevant.

Ross Alexander James

First Particular

Ross Alexander James gave sworn evidence at the Second Trial of the Complainant. In that evidence he stated that when he looked at the histological slides through the microscope, which slides were said to contain tissue taken from bruises on the left leg of the deceased, all the bruises appeared to be the same.

Second Particular

Ross Alexander James subsequently gave sworn evidence before the Medical Board of South Australia. In that evidence he stated in relation to those slides, that when he looked at them through the microscope, the mark said to have been a bruise on the inner side of the left leg was different in appearance to the appearance of the tissue in the other slides.

Third Particular

The evidence that Ross Alexander James gave to the jury at the Second Trial of the Complainant, about the appearance of the said slides, was inconsistent or incomplete in a material particular with the evidence given to the Medical Board.

Fourth Particular

Ross Alexander James has and has had a professional obligation to reveal all of the relevant facts of the case concerning the Complainant. In the course of giving his sworn evidence at the Second Trial of the Complainant, he failed to do so.

Fifth Particular

Ross Alexander James gave sworn evidence at the Second Trial of the Complainant that when he looked at the slides through the microscope, which slides were said to have contained tissue from the legs of the deceased, he referred to each of the slides he looked at as having skin with bruising.

Sixth Particular

Ross Alexander James gave sworn evidence to the Medical Board of South Australia in his affidavit and in his oral examination that when he looked at the slides containing tissue, said to have been taken from the left leg of the deceased, that one slide when looked at under the microscope contained no evidence of bruising.

Seventh Particular

Ross Alexander James acknowledged that according to Colin Henry Manock one of the slides he looked at contained tissue said to have been taken from the inner side of the left leg of the deceased.

Eighth Particular

Ross Alexander James’ failure to reveal to the jury the true appearance of the tissue said to have come from the mark on the inner side of the left leg was improper and unethical within the meaning and the definition of unprofessional conduct referred to.

Ninth Particular

Ross Alexander James’ failure to acknowledge to the Medical Board of South Australia that the sworn evidence he gave at the Second Trial of the Complainant was inconsistent or incomplete in a material particular was improper and unethical conduct within the meaning and definition of unprofessional conduct referred to.

Tenth Particular

Ross Alexander James’ failure to explain to the Medical Board of South Australia the inconsistency in the sworn evidence he gave at the Second Trial of the Complainant and the sworn evidence he gave upon the same matter before the Medical Board of South Australia is improper and unethical conduct within the meaning and definition of unprofessional conduct referred to.

Eleventh Particular

The Director of Public Prosecutions at the Second Trial of the Complainant informed the jury at the trial that the marks, said to have been bruises upon the left leg of the deceased, were all made at the same time and were therefore the one positive indication of murder.

That submission by the Director of Public Prosecutions was based upon the evidence which had been given by Ross Alexander James, and was known or should have been known by Ross Alexander James, at the time at which he gave that evidence, to be incorrect.

Twelfth Particular

Ross Alexander James is not excused from complying with his professional obligation on the basis that he did not think it to be particularly relevant.

Particulars of lodgement

This Further Complaint is lodged by

of

in the State of South Australia,

the solicitors for the Complainant Henry Vincent Keogh

DATED 21 April 2005

Top of Page