Document

On 25 July 2007 Mr Gerard Crewdson wrote information and opinion:
From: gerard crewdson
Sent: Wednesday, 25 July 2007 9:23 AM
To: LOP@parliament.nsw.gov.au
Cc: Ian.Cohen@parliament.nsw.gov.au

Subject: HEALTHQUEST/NSW SUPREME COURT-CHELMSFORD REPEATS ITSELF
BARRY O FARRELL
Dear Mr Farrell
Thank you for acknowledgement of my previous e-mail.
I'm still awaiting a response from Mr Iemma

On 14 Oct 1997 then Labor MP for East Hills Pat Rogan stated to NSW Parliament concerning Chelmsford victims Barry Harts struggle for justice:

"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"

The day before 13 Oct 1997 I had recieved a letter from my DOCS Manager Ms Jackie Pitchford directing me to attend a mysterious place called HealthQuest.

Two days previously I had openly confronted staff member Damian Lutvey about his ongoing abuse/mistreatment of a severely disabled man Allan Moriarty

At HealthQuest I was subjected to a hostile psychiatric examination against my will, labelled with a "probable" mental illness and removed from my duties.

Barry Hart sought justice in the NSW Supreme Court as a victim of Chelmsford. . The Court of Appeal treated him with contempt in two decisions. Both decisions were written by then "Justice" Priestly. He should not have been involved in the second because of bias/prejudgment. Now today history is repeating itself. The President of the Court of Appeal Justice Mason is about to hand down a judgment in relation to HealthQuest which I anticipate will be as contemptuous of the law and facts as the Courts previous decisions on Chelmsford. And where ex Justice Priestly was improperly allowed to sit in judgment on Barry Hart, today it is ex Justice Handley. I enclose my desperate last minute e-mail sent to President Mason yesterday seeking the removal of ex Justice Handley (supposedly retired April 2007 having reached age of 72)

HISTORY IS REPEATING ITSELF and former MP Pat Rogan's ringing words to Parliament 14 Oct 1997 are unfortunately as true today as they were back then. The issue of judicial corruption must be tackled before any other form of official corruption can ever be fully addressed Ex Queensland Justice Geoff Davies writing in the Australian 20/7/07 stated:

"It's in the public interest that governments protect whistleblowers. People who speak out should be protected, not relentlessly pursued and punished."

Here in NSW the Iemma Govt, Crown Solicitor, and judiciary are relentlessly pursuing and punishing whistleblowers and making a mockery of legislation passed by Parliament for our protection. As I feared in my previous e-mail TAFE Teacher Mrs Kerrison has been landed with a fine of $250,000 for speaking out and Ms Bourot is being fined $160,000.

SHAME SHAME SHAME
Gerard Crewdson

COURT OF APPEAL REGISTRY

PLEASE ENSURE THIS URGENT MESSAGE REACHES JUSTICE MASON BEFORE JUDGMENT IS HANDED DOWN IN THIS MATTER 25/7/07

It is the full text of the message i unsuccesfully tried to fax earlier today.

For me to attend would require my sleeping rough tonight in Sydney as there would be insufficient time to make journey from central coast tomorrow morning-further the Court must first of all ensure my full protection under law from ongoing detrimental action from DADHC, HealthQuest and Crown Solicitor before it is psychologically safe for me to further physically attend Court. Yours sincerely Gerard Crewdson

JUSTICE KEITH MASON
PRESIDENT OF THE NSW COURT OF APPEAL

URGENT

RE: EX JUSTICE HANDLEY AND CREWDSON v IRC & ORS S40514 of 2006

Justice Mason,

I have received notification signed Stephanie (Stanledge?) from the Court of Appeal requiring my attendance for a judgment to be handed down in this matter on 25/7/07 tomorrow. I am currently staying with friends on the central coast to avoid having to sleep out in the present bitter cold in Sydney. It is therefore difficult for me to attend tomorrow in person. I rang Ms Stanledge yesterday and explained this and also raised my misgivings about the continued presence of ex Justice Handley in these proceedings. She said that if I was present tomorrow I could raise these matters before the judgment was given. As the matters are in fact lengthy and very serious I do not think this would be adequate. I am therefore setting out my concerns in full by way of this urgent fax. I am afraid that if I do not irrevocable harm will be done tomorrow not only to me and many others who are dependant upon justice being properly administered in the Court of Appeal in this matter . I know that this application should usually be made through the Registry by Notice of Motion but one of the serious matters I am raising is the conduct also of Registrar Schell who for almost a year has blocked all such applications from me.

EX JUSTICE HANDLEY IS UNDERMINING JUSTICE

In my final submissions 10/7/07 I asked you to take immediate action to remove ex Justice Handley from these proceedings " because of his dishonesty in Crewdson v CSAHS (2002) NSWCA 345 " (at 16) That dishonesty is plain on the face of the judgment in that he falsely states that my referral to HealthQuest was made pursuant clause 17 of the Public Sector Management (General) Regulation 1996. For the uninformed reader the effect of this LIE is to give a false impression of lawfulness to a process that was completely unlawful. Given that judicial honesty is the subject matter of these proceedings the presence of ex Justice Handley is guaranteed to lead to a miscarriage of justice. You have not taken immediate action to remedy this serious situation as I asked. Perhaps you will be doing so in tomorrow's judgment but even if this were so the matters I must raise in this urgent fax would still need to be dealt with.

At (82) of my final submissions 10/7/07 I stated:
"I will also be presenting further evidence of the misconduct and dishonesty of Hanley JA, Ipp JA and davies AJA arising out of their judgment in Crewdson v CSAHS (2002) NSWCA 345 "

I will summarise some further evidence below in support of this urgent application for the immediate removal of ex Justice Handley from these proceedings.

THE DISHONESTY OF COURT OF APPEAL RE FOI CASE LAW

The Court of Appeal in Crewdson v CSAHS held that whether or not there had been procedural unfairness in the making of an official decision was not a relevant consideration in an application to amend under the NSW FOI Act.
In doing so the Court of Appeal deliberately and dishonestly misrepresented relevant FOI case law and in particular Re Close & ANU (1993) 31 ALD 597.
In my written and oral submissions to the Court of Appeal I cited this particular case as authority that procedural unfairness had been found to be a relevant consideration in an application under FOI legislation to amend a misleading or incorrect official opinion if that opinion was made in circumstances where there was an obligation upon the decision maker to observe the rules of procedural fairness.
In the transcript of the hearing 12/7/02 Handley JA in relation to Re Close stated to me

HANDLEY JA-Yes I see the way you use that-that's a relevant case"

Handley JA tried to dodge this relevant case by incompetently stating " Do you understand that Close is not an FOI case" and I the supposed legally untrained said : "Sorry it is -Its an FOI Case and I raised it to.."
Handley JA had to agree " Beg your pardon-yes it is" T/s p 43-44. Knowing this case firmly supported my submissions on procedural unfairness and FOI amendment powers, Handley JA, Ipp JA and Davies AJA in their published judgment cited FOI Case law including RE Close & ANU (1993) ALD 597 as authority that questions of procedural unfairness were irrelevant to FOI legislation. This dishonesty regarding RE Close infects there whole decision.

THE DISHONESTY OF THE COURT OF APPEAL RE "EXPERT EVIDENCE"

At 26 of their judgment the Court of Appeal stated
(26) Both doctors gave evidence that they formed the opinion and they stood by it. The appellant gave evidence in which he asserted that he was in the relevant sense fit for work at the time but he did not call expert evidence to support this claim."
As the Court of Appeal knew from a reading of the original FOI decision in my favour overturned by them (Crewdson v CSAHS (2000) NSWADT 84) I did not simply assert that I was fit for work. I gave evidence under oath on the witness stand which was completely unchallenged by the respondents HEALTHQUEST and CSAHS and which the Tribunal (Robinson JM) then made findings upon. Those findings of fact were not subsequently appealed by CSAHS/ HEALTHQEST and were thus binding also upon the Court of Appeal.
Furthermore the court of Appeal in Crewdson v CSAHS refused to apply its own leading authority on expert evidence in Makita (Australia) Pty Ltd v Sprowlws (2001) 52 NSWLR 705 ,. At 730 of that judgment Powell JA cites and applies Davie v Lord Provost ..(1953) SC 34 where Lord Russel (at 42) said:

(T)he defendants argued that in the absence of any counter evidence of expert opinion in the science professed by Mr Teichman the Court is bound to accept his opinion as conclusive and as decisive of the issue. I am clearly of opinion that the argument must be rejected as being contrary to the principles by which the rules of evidence are regulated, and as constituting an unwarrantable encroachment on the judicial function of the Court"

The Court of Appeal in Makita followed the authority of Davie v Lord Provost but subsequently the Court of Appeal in Crewdson v CSAHS applied the approach to expert evidence firmly rejected in Davie above by insisting that the Tribunal in my case was bound to accept the opinions of Dr Jagger and Dr Roberts in the absence of any counter expert evidence from myself. I am both disturbed and angry that the Court of Appeal in Crewdson has made an exception to Makita ostensibly on discriminatory grounds ie that I was alleged to be suffering a mental illness. Whether or not I was- such treatment by the Court of Appeal is bigoted and smacks of the policies of Nazi Germany for reasons set out in my submissions 10/7/07.

THE DISHONESTY OF THE COURT OF APPEAL RE BIAS OF DR ROBERTS

In Crewdson v CSAHS the Court of Appeal held (1) A medical opinion is not shown to be incorrect or misleading because the procedures were legally flawed or the doctor was biased."
FOI case law in fact allows an opinion to be amended on the basis that the decision maker was biased/ hostile/actuated by malice.
Further the Court of Appeal in Makita at (739) cited the duties and responsibilities expert witnesses in civil cases as follows

An expert witness should provide independent assistance to the Court by way of objective unbiased opinion.."

In the farcical hearing of these proceedings on 5/7/07 you displayed visible anger at me because I had to spell out in big letter Dr Roberts HealthQuest psychiatrist's admission under oath that she was H-O-S-T-I-L-E to me on 29/10/97. I do so again and will continue to do so because this admitted hostility not only rendered her opinion invalid on this ground alone but also rendered her initial evidence to court as being knowingly untrue and misleading.

There are other serious dishonesties in Crewdson v CSAHS which I will detail later.

ECHO PUBLICATIONS v TUDOR (2007) NSWCA 170

This recent judgment of the Court confirms that I have had a right to have Crewdson v CSAHS reopened on the basis that I was not properly heard and that the judgments preceded on a misapprehension of the facts and law. I sought reopening of this decision in 2003 and was misinformed by the Registrar and CEO that I had to go to the High Court. I have the correspondence over this matter. Crewdson v CSAHS has had a devastating impact not only on my own matter but on the whole FOI jurisdiction. Please act now to repair the damage.

KETCHNELL v MASTER OF EDUCATION (2007) NSWCA 161

This judgment just handed down in which you were involved states:
"If the legislature prohibits the making of a contract the making of the contract does not give rise to an enforceable right or obligation."

In the light of this decision I urgently ask that as well as reconstituting the Court of Appeal in this matter that you allow submissions to be made on the application of Ketchnell v Master of Education to the subject matter of these proceedings. The Deed I was made to sign 6/10/98 was prohibited by various legislation including

"the NSW Protected Disclosures Act 1994
The CAMA Act 1993
Section 121 of the Industrial Relations Act 1996

I'm sorry I have to make this application but I am deeply concerned that if not made irrevocable harm will flow from handing down judgment tomorrow.

Yours sincerely
Gerard Crewdson