Rob Messenger - Writer & Broadcaster | Consultant | Whistleblower Advocacy & Risk Management
  

0407 904 134

Oct
16
  Patel Jury asked wrong question.

Patel Jury asked wrong question.

Posted in: Uncategorized
Patel Jury asked wrong question.


It’s no wonder that the Jury in the latest Patel trial failed to reach a decision.

 

The QLD Crown prosecution continued its well-documented incompetent behavior and asked the Jury the wrong question.

 

Instead of asking whether the surgery on Mr. Vowles by Mr. Patel was unnecessary - the Crown should have asked whether the surgery was legal?

 

Mr. Vowles - along with each of Patel’s former 1500 patients - when they signed the official QLD Health form giving permission for Mr. Patel to cut them open – did so with the expectation a properly registered and credentialed doctor did the cutting.

 

If Mr. Patel was not – as is alleged by the QLD Health Royal Commission – properly registered or credentialed, then the question must be, was any surgery - no matter whether it was unnecessary or not - illegal and therefore an assault?

 

The QLD Crown seems to have forgotten that section 245 (see attached) of QLD’s criminal code states that the definition of assault happens when:

 

(1) A person who strikes, touches, or moves or otherwise applies force of any kind to, the person of another, either directly or indirectly, without the other person’s consent, or with the other person’s consent if a consent is obtained by fraud…

 

Of course to prove assault under s245, the Crown would also have to produce evidence that government oversight bodies and employees (medical board, senior health bureaucrats and politicians) were negligent in employing, registering and credentialing Mr. Patel as a QLD doctor.

 

And that evidence could be used in a massive civil damages claim by up to 1500 patients who - when they consented to treatment - thought that their government had provided them with a properly registered and credentialed doctor, legally licensed to apply force to their person.

 

Its fortunate for Attorney General Bleije and his government colleagues that their Crown prosecutors seem determined to put the wrong question to QLD Juries. It could save political embarrassment and help the government with future budget bottom lines.

 

Rob Messenger

0407904134

 

 

 

Attachment 1

 

 

On page 301 Judge Davies wrote in the QLD Health Royal Commission that the definition of Assault under s245 of the QLD Criminal Code is:

 

Definition of Assault

 

(1) A person who strikes, touches, or moves or otherwise applies force of any kind to, the person of another, either directly or indirectly, without the other person’s consent, or with the other person’s consent if a consent is obtained by fraud, or who by any bodily act or gesture attempts or threatens to apply force of any kind to the person of another without the other person’s consent, under such circumstances that the person making the attempt or threat has actually or apparently a present ability to effect the person’s purpose, is said to assault that other person, and the act is called assault.

 

(2) In this section –

‘applies force’ includes the case of applying heat, light, electrical force, gas, odour, or any other substance or thing whatever if applied in such degree as to cause injury or personal discomfort. 

 



 


Top of page