Document

NOTE: CHECK BEFORE PUBLISHING

21 Feb 2006

CREWDSON v DADHC & Ors No 4851 of 2005

Justices Wright, Walton and Backmann

WHY I WAS COMPELLED TO WALK OUT ON "HEARING" 16/2/06
On Thurs 16/2/06 I was compelled to take the extreme measure of walking out on "hearing" 16/2/06 whilst Justice Walton was reading out your decison refusing disqualification. As I said whilst doing so I am very sorry I had to do this. For reasons as set out in my letter to the Full Bench 15 Feb 2006 this hearing ostensibly into the issue of leave to appeal was a sham as effectively a decison had already been taken by this Full Bench on 11 Nov 2006 not to allow the appeal at all.

Accordingly all that was left for me was to seek disqualification of this Full Bench. I could no longer bear to continue in the presence of this Full Bench as soon as Justice Walton uttered the, to me, insulting words "there is no rational basis for this application" prefaced by reference to case law concerning "apprehended bias"

Nowhere in my application did I refer to apprehended bias based on perceptions. My application was based on demonstrable facts. The principle fact is that Justices Wright and Walton have been involved in a succession of HealthQuest judgments involving Lesley Killen, Val Kerrison, Pascale Bourot and myself all decided against us and all based firmly on one great falsehood/legal lie -that officers of our Department were /are bound by opinions of HealthQuest doctors in relation to our employment. As I and others have repeatedly pointed out to you in various submissions this is not true and is contrary to now established law in NSW (see Commissioner of Corrective Service v Maxwell EOD (2001) NSWADTAP 21 and the High Court authorities that decision is based upon.) It is a scandal that five years after this decision was handed down the IRC at the highest level is blatantly choosing to ignore the law of NSW with regard to HealthQuest.

Because the Commission at its highest level has so firmly adopted the falsehood/legal lie-that NSW Departments are bound by HealthQuest-it is not and cannot be open to any other persuasion. The test for actual basis is set out in Sun v Minister for immigration and Ethnic Affairs (1997) 81 FCR 71 "Actual bias exists where the decision maker has prejudiced the case against the applicant or acted with such partisnaship or hostility as to show that the decision maker has had a mind made up against the applicant and was not open to persuasion."

This failure of the IRC at the highest level to apply the law correctly to HealthQuest in our cases could arise out of incompetence/ignorance or deliberate deceit/bad faith. I consider that this is a case of the latter since I credit you with sufficient intelligence to know what you are doing.

On Thursday I had to get up at 6.00 am at Port Kembla to travel 2 hours by train for a futile hearing where the central issue had already been decided against me. THis is very demoralising I am still battling poverty caused by the respondents illegal actions and on Thurs was exhausted by the stress of all of this. In addition I am deeply upset by the injustice caused to Val Kerrison. It is significant that at no time have you attempted to defend what has been done to her but simply and wrongly stated that it is irrelevant to my case. I am likewise upset by this Commission's treatment of Lesley Killen and Pascale Bourot. To have all the above concerns dismissed so imperiously as being without a "rational basis" was to me cruel in the extreme.

A further trigger for my stress on Thursday was the anticipation of having to deal with yet another application from the Respondents for dismissal for want of prosecution. I have done all I humanly can to have my case heard properly and quickly but have been continously obstructed and frustrated by the conduct of the respondents and the crown solicitor and their legal representatives through such tactics as withholding evidence and allowing their witnesses to engage in substantial perjury. This forms the subject matter of my contempt application. The way in which the appeal hearing has been conducted has threatened to undermine these proceedings also and I consider the Full Bench's conduct in this regard to be scandalous and irresponsible.

I confirm that since April 2004 I been attempting to seek judicial review of the Commission decisions in the Supreme Court and am and will be taking these ,matters to a higher level. Again I am sorry to have had to walk out on Thursday and am sorry to have to state the above. I once more ask you since you are not open to persuasion on HealthQuest to desist from making any further decisions on my case whilst the contempt proceedings are being dealt with and whilst I seek resolution of these matters at a higher level.