Document

On 27 July 2007, Mr Gerard Crewdson wrote:

PREMIER OF NSW , MR MORRIS IEMMA,
LEADER OF OPPOSITION, MR BARRY O'FARRELL

"In the postwar world, Auschwitz has come to symbolise genocide in the twentieth century. But Auschwitz was only the last most perfect Nazi killing center. The entire killing enterprise had started in January 1940 with the murder of the most helpless human beings , institutionalised handicapped patients"
Henry Friedlander The Origins of Nazi Genocide
"A doctor who complained about the treatment of severely disabled patients at the Metro Residences in Rydalmere has been fired...." Paramatta Sun Gerard Sutton 8/6/07

Mr Iemma, Mr O"Farrell,

Yesterday 25/7/07 the NSW Supreme Court-Court of Appeal handed down a judgment in Crewdson v Industrial Relations Commission of NSW & Ors (2007) NSWCA 178 which confirms that in New South Wales, public officials can assault, abuse, injure and neglect severely disabled and helpless human beings with complete impunity. The NSW Supreme Court- Court of Appeal has also ruled that public officials who attempt to protect the disabled from such abuse can be labelled mentally ill, made subject to illegal and involuntary psychiatric examinations, removed from their employment, stripped of all their legal rights and protections and punished and persecuted for the rest of their lives.

As Holocaust scholar and survivor Professor Henry Friedlandler reminds us, it was the disabled and mentally ill who were the first victims of Nazi genocide in Germany (see quote above). Unfortunately this terrible history is still very much overlooked, ignored or misunderstood with the result that prejudices, which in Germany 60-70 years ago gave rise to these crimes, still flourish today throughout the world. (See "Forgotten Crimes: The Holocaust and People with Disabilities-Disability Rights Advocates Dec 1999 Lawrence Paradis, Sol Wolinsky)

What is particularly disturbing here in New South Wales is that these murderous prejudices are being voiced openly at the highest official levels by Government appointed lawyers, doctors and judges and now also by three Supreme Court judges-"Justice" Mason - President of the Court of Appeal, "Acting Justice" Handley and "Justice" Hodgson. This collusion between government officials doctors and judges makes the parallels with Nazi Germany even more chilling and relevant:

"Judges discovered that relying on medicine , rather than law , gave them arbitrary and absolute power in rendering verdicts and sentences"
(Nazi Justiz Law of the Holocaust Richard Miller)

In case you think I'm exaggerating with such comparisons I draw your attention to the recent firing of Dr Cary Ooi Visiting Medical Officer at Metro Residences Rydalmere by the NSW Department of Ageing Disability and HomeCare. (see quote above Paramatta Sun 8/6/07)

The Rydalmere Executive terminated Dr Ooi's 11 years of service on 24/5/07 after he had complained to the NSW Ombudsman about treatment of severely disabled residents at Rydalmere including death arising from unnecessary medical procedures. This is part of a much larger and darker story of deaths of the disabled stretching back at least a decade and furiously covered up by the Department. The Court of Appeal's judgment yesterday in Crewdson v Industrial Relations Commission of NSW & Ors (2007) NSWCA 178 makes it now even more difficult to expose or report such crimes. It also makes a mockery of specific legislation passed by Parliament to protect people who report abuse of disabled in government care-the NSW Community Services (Complaints Appeals and Monitoring) Act 1993 and the NSW Protected Disclosures Act 1994.

Some 10 years ago as a Residential Care Assistant with the Department I spoke up about the treatment of severely disabled clients in my care. Justice Hodgson at (5) of yesterday's judgment summarised my initial complaint and what it led to:

5 In June 1997, a resident in the home where the claimant worked was injured while being handled by another staff member. The claimant raised concerns about this with the House Manager Ms Gillett. Shortly afterwards , another staff member commenced verbal attacks on the claimant. In July 1997, the claimant submitted a formal complaint to Ms Gillett."
6 In September 1997, Ms Gillett spoke to her immediate supervisor, Ms Pitchford, concerning the claimant ..expressing concerns that the claimant was suffering a serious mental illness. On 13 October 1997, Ms Pitchford gave the claimant a written direction to attend HealthQuest"

At (40) of yesterday's judgment Justice Hodgson refers again to this initial complaint noting the Department's subsequent admission to Court that the resident's injury was "significant" and that my concerns were "legitimate"

"40 ..while the Director General's Counsel did admit that a resident suffered a significant injury and the claimant's concern about this was legitimate, he did not admit that this injury resulted from an assault."

What Justice Hodgson failed to mention about Allan Moriarty's significant injury is that:

the Department took six years to make these admissions on 13/12/02 and only did so when confronted with compelling evidence of Allan's injuries caused 17/6/97
the Department had meanwhile destroyed or removed critical evidence including medical records and incident reports relating to this incident thereby thwarting any proper investigation into the possibility that Allan had been assaulted by staff Damien Lutvey
Mr Lutvey was involved in the withholding or loss of this evidence
Allan directly reported to me on 23/9/97 that he was being "bullied" by Mr Lutvey
Mr Lutvey on 10/10/97 initiated a chain of events after I had complained to him about his mistreatment of Allan whereby false allegations of mental illness were made to HealthQuest leading to my appointment for a psychiatric examination
Mr Lutvey did not attend as a witness in proceedings in the NSW Industrial Relations Commission to answer any of this serious evidence against him which therefore stood unchallenged.
10 years later the Department still refuses to investigate Allan's significant injury, the proven and corrupt misconduct of Damian Lutvey and the subsequent destruction and loss of evidence related to this incident

Allan is completely blind, has cerebral palsy, a severe intellectual disability and suffers epilepsy. I pointed out to Justices Mason Hodgson and Handley in my final submissions that had he lived in Germany during the Nazi Regime- for anyone of the above disabilities-Allan would have been gased or starved to death under the T-4 program.

I know of another resident in the supposed care of the Department who was indeed tortured and starved to death. His body was cremated preventing autopsy and his death certificate was falsified. The nurse who courageously tried to protect him has been relentlessly punished and persecuted ever since by the Department and HealthQuest. It is not an isolated event and I am worried that Allan could potentially suffer the same fate

Another incident of client mistreatment that I reported was the assault of a severely disabled resident Louisa Hori by male staff Tom McGuire on 8/5/97. This assault had been substantiated by DOCS Internal Inquiry and this fact is publicly recorded by Justice Boland of the NSW Industrial Relations Commission at (44) of Crewdson v DOCS (2005) NSWIRComm 308

"The four substantiated allegations were:
(1) Assault of LH (a female client) by staff member. This was the assault by Mr McGuire referred to earlier"

In my written submissions to the Court of Appeal I quoted ex Minister Della Bosca's clear statement to Parliament 6/4/06 on the Department's responsibilities in such matters

"The approach of DADHC to these instances of abuse is that, whether or not they are systemic they are criminal offences that involve the criminal mistreatment of individuals , and the individuals responsible for these offences will be reported to the police for investigation."

However DOCS Management in 1997 despite knowing Mr McGuire had assaulted Louisa Hori never reported him to the NSW Police and allowed him to evade investigation for a serious criminal offence. Not reporting crime is in itself a criminal offence. Justice Boland and the Industrial Relations Commission found nothing wrong with the conduct of the Department. Justice Hodgson at (28) of yesterday's judgment referred to this disturbing fact:

"Further evidence of bad faith was shown by Boland J's disregard of the circumstance that there had been an unreported assault against a disabled woman.."

But even here where the facts of the assault and the Department's failure to report it to the police were beyond dispute and staring them in the face from Justice Boland's written judgment, the Court of Appeal -Justice Mason, Handley and Hodgson-had no adverse words for DOCS Management or Justice Boland or the Industrial Relations Commission.

If the Court of Appeal can so easily turn a blind eye to criminal assault of a severely disabled woman, or evidence of assault causing serious injury to a severely disabled man in order not to adversely criticise this government then the Court of Appeal will most certainly turn a blind eye to evidence of the torture and murder of the disabled in this State.

In its contemptuous treatment of the disabled and myself the Court of Appeal yesterday has effectively stated that the rule of law does not apply to protect us. The Court of Appeal has instead in its judgment applied the totalitarian principle that the ends justify the means as set out in Hitler's proclamation of 22/10/38

"every means adopted for carrying out the will of the Leader is considered legal even though it may conflict with existing statutes and precedents."

Thus the Court of Appeal is not concerned that the actions taken against me after I complained about mistreatment of disabled residents were in breach of natural justice and were unauthorised under the statute governing my employment. At (42) Justice Hodgson stated:

"The effect of Boland J's judgment was that , to the extent that any such matters were shown, they did not entitle the claimant to any remedy , both because the claimant did not resolve the question as to his mental health and because none of these matters were sufficient to invalidate the deed."

The mere and unproven allegation that I was suffering a serious mental illness was according to Justice Hodgson and the Court of Appeal sufficient to disentitle me even to the fundamental right of natural justice and protection under law.

I pointed out to the Court of Appeal that having been thus labelled with mental illness by a Government psychiatrist, I too would have been gassed , shot or starved to death in Nazi Germany as part of the Holocaust. And my dearly loved oldest brother would also have been murdered as someone suffering an actual and serious mental illness. My family have traumatic memories of almost seeing him die because of the criminal negligemce of a psychiatrist Dr Fernando. It is because of my experience caring for my brother that I was drawn to the care of the severely disabled. The hell I have been put through over the past 10 years as a result of HealthQuest and now the Court of Appeal has reawakened these traumas. I am furious and disgusted to witness yet again judges in this state without any sense of shame employing the murderous prejudice that my brother has suffered from and which caused such great evil in Germany 60-70 years ago.

In my written submissions to the Court of Appeal I carefully set out the statutory provisions of the NSW Anti-Discrimination Act, the NSW Community Services Complaints Appeals and Monitoring Act 1993 and the NSW Protected Disclosures Act 1994 and how those provisions related to the evidence in my case and rendered a Deed I was made to sign on 6/10/98 illegal and therefore void.

The interaction of this legislation has never before been raised before the Court of Appeal before. Nowhere in yesterday's judgment did Justice Hodgson consider these submissions. Instead he and the Court of Appeal simply pretended this legislation did not exist.

At (46) Justice Hodgson dismissed my submissions in two brief lines without giving any reasons.
44 In my opinion Boland J did address the arguments put by the claimant for invalidating the deed, and I see no grounds for doing so other than bona fide."

Judges must give reasons for their decisions. The statement above is both cowardly by avoiding the serious legal issues I had raised and utterly contemptuous of me. With regard to the Deed I quoted to the Court of Appeal the words of Chief Justice Spigelman in "The Rule of Law and its enforcement" 22/1/03

"The rule of law requires that disputes be resolved on the basis of impartial determination so as not to depend on the mere election of the more powerful or wealthier party and the degree of desperation of the other"

Contrary to these fine sentiments and consistent with their disregard for the rule of law the Court of Appeal in yesterday's judgment have ruled that the NSW Government can illegally suspend an employee without pay for 8 months until he has reached the point of total destitition and homelessness and then force that employee to sign away for ever all his legal rights and protections. Sec 117 of the Community Services Complaints Appeals and Monitoring Act 1993 and sec 20 of the NSW Protected Disclosures Act 1994 render such a deed a criminal act.

The fact that Parliament had passed this legislation and the highest Court in this State refuses to acknowledge or apply it is of greatest concern. Geoff Davies former Queensland judge writing in the Australian 20/7/07 stated:

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

10 years of my life has been wasted by the malevolent and irredemably dishonest judiciary of this State. I have reported serious criminal assault and other unlawful treatment of the most helpless and vulnerable citizens of this State. If nothing else this case has revealed the utter lack of any conscience or integrity both within this Government and within the judiciary. There is no rule of law and no judicial independence in New South Wales when the rights of the disabled and mentally ill are not recognised. I worked with complete conscientiousness as a public servant in this State for seven years until brutally and illegally removed on 29/10/97. I demand the same conscientiousness from each of you. Please do not be silent over the scandals of HealthQuest, the abuse of the disabled and judicial corruption. I will be soon submitting to you a more detailed expose of these scandals and a claim for restitution based on sec A-46 of the NSW Ombudsman's Guidelines on Redress for Maladministration.

Yours sincerely
Gerard Crewdson

cc NSW Judicial Commission
ICAC
Ian Cohen The Greens

Peter_Schell@agd.nsw.gov.au wrote:

Dear Sir

I refer to your email which was received by me shortly after 10.17 am today.

As you are aware, your matter was listed today at 10.15 am for the delivery of judgment. As a consequence of the judgment, the summons filed by you on 13 April 2007 has been dismissed with costs.

A copy of the judgment has been forwarded to you at your nominated address for service. The judgment will also be available for viewing in due course on the judgments database of the Court's website.

Yours faithfully