It / /Ja Member: 1

Paper No.: Date: it / /ja Member: 1

abled Tabled, by leave 23 June 2010 Incorporated, Remainder incorporated, by leave by leave Clerk at the Table: Mr Martin Moynihan Chairman Crime and Misconduct Commission GPO Box 3123 BRISBANE Q 4001

Dear Mr Moynihan, Rob Messenger MP MEMBER FOR B URNETT On behalf of my staff, myself and the people of the Burnett, I congratulate you on your public comments and the CMC Review of the June 2010 Queensland Police Service's Palm Island Review.

You have given renewed hope to the people of Queensland that the CMC will become a fearless and impartial force against crime and misconduct, wherever it may be found.

I note that as the head of the CMC, as reported by Madonna King in the Courier-Mail June 19, 2010.. CMG won't be palmed off

"under the Police Service Administration Act 1990, the CIVIC has to also agree to both the appointment and the conditions on which the appointment is made"

And therefore quite obviously, you have a very important role to play in the appointment of the Queensland Police Commissioner.

In order to assist you to make that decision fully informed, and specifically on behalf of former patients of Jayent Patel and others, I'd like to draw to your attention the behavior of the QLD Police Service lead Strop 7Bargara Beacli -Plaza by Police Commissioner Atkinson, with regard to an employee of 15-19 See Street Queensland Health Dr Darren Keating. (PO Box 8371) Bargara Q1d4670 Dr Darren Keating you will remember, was employed by the Queensland Government, as the Director of Medical Services at the Bundaberg Base Freecall No. 1800 819 545 Hospital shortly after the employment of Dr Patel In April 2003. Office phone: (07) 4159 1988 Office fax: (07) 4159 2696 Mobile: 0407 904134 Retired Supreme Court Judge and author of the Queensland Public Hospitals Commission of Inquiry Report, the Honorable Geoffrey Davies Email: AO made 14 adverse findings with regards to Dr Keating and bursteIt a)parllmttenl.r/ltl.goy.arr recommended that: w ww. robnressenger. con: (a) Dr Keating's conduct with respect to the application for a four year visa, be referred to the Australian Federal Police for investigation into whether he has committed an offence against s, 137 of the Criminal Code (Cth), on the basis that he may have knowingly or recklessly given false or misleading information to the Department of Immigration and Multicultural Affairs.

(b) Dr Keating's conduct in relation to he renewal of Dr Patel's registration be referred to the Queensland Police Service for investigation and prosecution for a breach of s. 273 of the Medical Practitioners Registration Act 2001, as he may have given false or misleading information or documents to the Medical Board.

(c) The Crime and Misconduct Commission prosecute Dr Keating for official misconduct, d) Alternatively, or subsequently, the Director - General of Queensland Health consider taking action against Dr Keating under s.87 of the Public Service Act 1996, on the basis that he has performed his duties carelessly or incompetently, or has been guilty of misconduct.

(see doe I for edited summary of adverse findings, and recommendations against Dr Keating from the Davies Royal Commission )

Despite these recommendations from a retired Supreme Court Judge in 2006, Dr Darren Keating has never been charged by any authority in Queensland and is now, I understand to day practicing medicine in West Australia as a GP.

This lack of legal action against Dr Keating was the subject of a referral to the CMC by myself, on behalf of the former patients of Patel in a letter 20.11,07 (see attach doc. 2) where I asked the head of the CMC to:

1) " Immediately institute proceedings against Dr Darren Keating for official misconduct

"Immediately commence a full and complete investigation of all the reasons for and decisions made by Commissioner Bob Atkinson and senior members of the QPS for refusing to charge Darren Keating with any offence..."

2) "... and the failure of the QPS and Commissioner Atkinson to release its decision ( Not to charge) after the statute of limitations had expired for this offence."

I also made a speech to parliament on 30.10.07 where 1 commented on the situation and my actions (see attach doe. 3)

A detective sergeant was given the job of investigating the royal commission's findings and recommendations in December 2005. Six months later, in May 2006, this officer handed his report to Commissioner Atkinson and QPS senior management.

The Police Commissioner and QPS senior management sat on that report for 11 months and then asked Brendan Butler Senior Counsel to undertake an independent assessment of the legal case against Keating.

By asking for Mr Butler's assessment of the case against Keating in April 2007, the Police Minister's department either by accident or by deliberate manipulation ensured that 50 per cent of the legal charges against Keating were no longer possible because the statute of limitations ran out two months earlier-that is, in February 2007.

How politically convenient for this government that the independent review was not requested until after the last state election and after the statute of limitations had expired?

Commissioner Davies, retired Supreme Court judge, recommended that Dr Keating be charged with criminal offences and official misconduct. This morning this government released Mr Butler's legal report. It confirmed-There is sufficient evidence to support a prima facie case against Dr Keating under the Criminal Code of attempted fraud.

Why has this government not acted and taken this prima facie case against Keating and presented it to a Queensland magistrate? Former Chair of the CMC Robert Needham replied to my correspondence with a letter dated 6.12.07 (See attached doc 2) in which he gave three explanations under the Broad Headings of:

1) Official Misconduct charges against Dr Keating

2) Investigating the decision of the Queensland Police Service not to prosecute

3) Investigating the timing of the decision not to prosecute.

In those explanations he gave reasons why the CMC would not be taking action against Dr Keating and/or any QPS officer.

You will note with regard to 1) Official Misconduct charges against Dr Keating, that Needham states:

"He no longer falls within the jurisdiction of the Misconduct Tribunal after he resigned in Novembe 2005."

"However, section 50 of the Act means the person must still be a public servant to be charged with disciplinary charges of official misconduct before the Misconduct Tribunal" This is an acknowledgment that official misconduct by public servants can happen and all the potentially guilty party has to do to escape punishment, is to resign from their employment with the Queensland Government.

I find this situation very disturbing and ask if you would recommend that this situation is fair for the victims of official misconduct or the Queensland Tax payers and whether you would support legislative change to close this loophole?

I believe that a review of the CMC and Whistle Blowers Protection acts is due, in order to ensure that a message of deterrence is sent to those public servants who may be thinking of committing acts of official misconduct.

Keating Summary

Given the facts that;

1) The charge under the MPRA against Keating ran out of its statute of limitation during an 11-month period of consideration by the Queensland Police Commissioner.

2) An independent recommendation from senior legal council Brendon Butler that a prima-facie case against Dr Keating existed for the remaining charge of Attempted Fraud under S408 of the QLD Criminal Code

3) That the remaining charge of fraud under S408 of the Criminal Code doesn't have any statute of limitation attached to it.

I'm deeply disturbed by the QPS investigation into possible criminal charges against Dr Darren Keating and the QPS decision not to charge him with a criminal offense.

I'm also deeply disturbed with previous explanations / reasons for inaction on the CMC`s behalf.

In summary, I ask that you review former chair Needham's decisions relating to my letter of 20 November 2007, while also re-investigating the role that Police Commissioner Atkinson and other senior police played in the non-charging of Dr Keating. In a press release dated 13 November 2007 in reference to the non-charging of Dr Keating (see attached doc 4 ) the president of the Bundaberg Burnett Patient support group Ian Flemming stated that:

"We seek the immediate release of the following:

1. The brief of evidence compiled by QPS for breaches of the MPRA ( Medical Practitioner's Registration Act)

2. The advice from the AFP re breaches of the Commonwealth Migration Act

3. The advice from the DPP for Attempted Fraud, s408C Qld Criminal Code

4. Advice from the QPS & CMC due to failure to prosecute Leck & Keating for Official Misconduct"

I would hope that you would also be able to help the group and myself obtain that information, which to my best knowledge , has not been released by any Queensland Government department.

I believe that in this letter, 1 have provided you with enough reasons and facts to form a reasonable suspicion that because of crime or misconduct, Dr Keating has not been charged with offences as recommended by Royal Commissioner Davies,

I also believe that I have provided you with important information , which will help your decision-making regarding the conditions on which the appointment is made of the Queensland Police Commissioner.

Sincerely

Rob Messenger Member for Burnett. Retired Supreme court Judge and author of the Queensland Public Hospitals Commission of Inquiry Report, the honorable Geoffrey Davies AO wrote with regards to Dr Keating:

"In breach of his duty to do so, and knowing that Dr Patel's skill and competence had not been assessed before he commenced employment at the Hospital, Dr Keating failed at any time between April 2003, when he was appointed, and when he left in 2005 to have that skill and competence assessed by an appropriate credentialing and privileging committee."

Commissioner Davies continued in his report at 1.16:

"In his 24 months at Bundaberg Base Hospital, staff or patients made over 20 complaints about Dr Patel."

And

"Dr Keating and Mr Leck persistently ignored or downplayed the seriousness of these complaints."

In his adverse findings at 3.427 Commissioner Davies with respect to Dr Keating wrote:

(j) On or about 5 January 2005, Dr Keating prepared a briefing note which acknowledged the veracity of many of the allegations made by staff at the Base about Dr Patel.

(k) By a letter dated 2 February 2005, and in the circumstances set out above, Dr Keating offered Dr Patel a temporary full time position of locum general surgeon for the period from 9 April 2005 to 31 July 2005.

(1) When, in early February 2005, Dr Keating wrote to the Medical Board seeking renewal of Dr Patel's registration, he provided an assessment of Dr Patel's performance completed which was knowingly false, failed to inform the Medical Board of any of the matters set out in the briefing note of January 2005, and failed to inform the Medical Board that a clinical audit was being conducted by the Chief Health Officer into complaints about Dr Patel. (m) On 9 February 2005, Dr Keating signed a Form 55 `application for sponsorship of visa' for Dr Patel and sent that form to the Department of Immigration and Multicultural Affairs wherein he stated that Dr Patel was to be employed as Director of Surgery at the Hospital for a further four years, in circumstances where that information was, to Dr Keating's knowledge, false.

(n) On 14 February 2005, Dr Keating met with the Chief Health Officer and discussed Dr Patel with him but failed to mention any of the adverse matters canvassed in the briefing note, or otherwise to volunteer concerns that had been raised about Dr Patel's performance.

Commissioner Davies then at 3.428 recommended that:

(a) Dr Keating's conduct with respect to the application for a four year visa be referred to the Australian Federal Police for investigation into whether he has committed an offence against s. 137 of the Criminal Code (Cth), on the basis that he may have knowingly or recklessly given false or misleading information to the Department of Immigration and Multicultural Affairs.

(b) Dr Keating's conduct in relation to the renewal of Dr Patel's registration be referred to the Queensland Police Service for investigation and prosecution for a breach of s. 273 of the Medical Practitioners Registration Act 2001, as he may have given false or misleading information or documents to the Medical Board.

(c) The Crime and Misconduct Commission prosecute Dr Keating for official misconduct. (d) Alternatively, or subsequently, the Director - General of Queensland Health consider taking action against Dr Keating under s. 87 of the Public Service Act 1996, on the basis that he has performed his duties carelessly or incompetently, or has been guilty of misconduct.

End

1.11 About a fortnight after Dr Patel commenced work at the Base, Dr Keating replaced Dr Nydham as Director of Medical Services there. In breach of his duty to do so, and knowing that Dr Patel's skill and competence had not been assessed before he commenced employment at the Hospital, Dr Keating failed at any time between April 2003, when he was appointed, and when he left in 2005 to have that skill and competence assessed by an appropriate credentialing and privileging committee. This was notwithstanding that the Policy and Guidelines required that his employment was conditional on that being done, and that, in the meantime, Dr Patel's registration was renewed and his employment extended. I make findings and recommendations against Dr Keating in respect of this and other matters at paragraphs 3.427 and 3.428.

Rob Messenger

6.609

An example of conflict between the evidence of these witnesses and Minister Nuttall is of what Ms Mears attributed to Minister Nuttall concerning Mr Messenger:608

During the meeting, Mr Nuttall said that the only way we could stop the rubbish that was going on at Bundaberg Base and in Bundaberg was if we were to vote Mr Messenger out.

in Dr Keating

3.427 I make the following adverse findings with respect to Dr Keating:

(a) He failed, from or about 14 April 2003 (when his employment at the Base commenced ), to ensure compliance with good practice by ascertaining the terms of Dr Patel's registration and ensuring that he was an appropriate person to continue as the Director of Surgery.

(b) He failed to comply with good practice from or about 14 April 2003 by ensuring that Dr Patel was the subject of a credentialing and privileging process, either in accordance with Queensland Health policy or on an ad hoc basis.

(c) Dr Keating failed to take steps to ensure , prior to, or immediately after the commencement of, Dr Patel's employment at the Base , he was subject to a process of credentialing and clinical privileging.

(d) From April 2003, Dr Keating was made aware of numerous complaints about the clinical practices and procedures of Dr Patel and his behaviour, including but not limited to, the following:

• In May and June 2003 , a complaint by Ms Toni Hoffmann and Dr Jon Joiner about the performance of oesophagectomies at the Base;

• In May 2003 , a complaint about incorrect topical treatment to a patient;

• In June 2003, a complaint about Dr Patel operating on the wrong part of a patient's ear;

• In July 2003, a complaint from a Dr Peter Cook about the performance of oesophagectomies at the Base;

• In July 2003, a complaint from Ms Aylmer about a rise in the incidence of wound dehiscence;

• In October 2003, a complaint from Mr Ian Fleming about Dr Patel'streatment of him for diverticulitis; • In November 2003, a complaint about Dr Patel's personal infection control measures;

• In late 2003, a complaint from Dr David Smalberger about the clinical and professional conduct of Dr Patel;

• In the course of 2004, an audit of peritoneal catheter placements demonstrating that Dr Patel had a one-hundred per cent complication rate;

• In March 2004, a complaint from Ms Toni Hoffman concerning Dr Patel's clinical conduct and professional behaviour and a complaint by Mr Geoffrey Smith about treatment provided by Dr Patel;

• In April 2004, a complaint from Ms Vicki Lester about the treatment that she had received from Dr Patel;

• In July 2004, complaints from staff about Dr Patel's involvement in the treatment of Mr Desmond Bramich;

• In October 2004, a complaint from Ms Hoffman about Dr Patel's clinical conduct in relation to a number of patients; .

• On 2 November 2004, a complaint from Dr Jason Jenkins in relation to the treatment of P52;

• In December 2004/January 2005, complaints from doctors and nurses at the Base about a further oesophagectomy;

• In January 2005, concerns raised by Dr Stephen Rashford and Ms Michelle Hunter about the care provided to P26.

(e) Dr Keating failed to take appropriate action to investigate these complaints, particularly having regard to their combined significance.

(f) Notwithstanding Dr Keating's knowledge that Dr Patel had not been subject to the credentialing and privileging process, and that he had been the subject of various complaints, Dr Keating:

• Offered to extend Dr Patel's contract from 1 April 2004 to 31 March 2005, from 1 April 2005 to 31 July 2005 and, at one point, from 1 April 2005 to 31 March 2009; Repeatedly advised the Medical Board (when renewal of registration was being sought) that Dr Patel's performance at the Base was competent, or better,

(g) Between 29 October and 5 November 2004, the concerns raised by Ms Hoffman were given considerable support by Drs Berens, Risson and Strahan.

(h) From 5 November 2004, Dr Keating failed to give any, or any adequate, consideration to revoking, or appropriately restricting, Dr Patel's right to conduct surgery in the Base.

(i) Until early January 2005, Dr Keating repeatedly advised Mr Leck that Ms Hoffman's complaints were unjustified and largely personality driven when he should have appreciated (particularly in the context of other complaints) that they raised genuine and concerning medical issues.

0) On or about 5 January 2005, Dr Keating prepared a briefing note which acknowledged the veracity of many of the allegations made by staff at the Base about Dr Patel,

(1) When, in early February 2005, Dr Keating wrote to the Medical Board seeking renewal of Dr Patel's registration, he provided an assessment of Dr Patel's performance completed which was knowingly false, failed to inform the Medical Board of any of the matters set out in the briefing note of January 2005, and failed to inform the Medical Board that a clinical audit was being conducted by the Chief Health Officer into complaints about Dr Patel. (m) On 1 February 2005, Dr Keating signed a Form 55 'application for sponsorship of visa' for Dr Patel and sent that form to the Department of Immigration and Multicultural Affairs wherein he stated that Dr Patel was to be employed as Director of Surgery at the Hospital for a further four years, in circumstances where that information was, to Dr Keating's knowledge , false.

8.428 1 recommend that:

(c) The Crime and Misconduct Commission prosecute Dr Keating for official misconduct, d) Alternatively, or subsequently, the Director - General of Queensland Health consider taking action against Dr Keating under s,87 of the Public Service Act 1996 , on the basis that he has performed his duties carelessly or incompetently , or has been guilty of misconduct. Dr Keating

6,707 1 have canvassed in Chapter Three the conduct of Dr Keating at Bundaberg.

6.708 Dr Keating's conduct, in my view, evinces an intention to shield affairs in his domain from any real scrutiny. There was a very steady stream of complaints about Dr Patel, containing very serious allegations and emanating from well qualified people. Those complaints were not well received and, in my view, the circumstances (which are set out in detail in Chapter Three) demonstrated more than a mere failure to comply with the Queensland Health policy on complaints handling. They demonstrated a propensity to downplay or 'fob off' any attempts to scrutinise Dr Patel's conduct.

6.709 Specific instances were these:

(a) When Ms Hoffman raised concerns about oesophagectomies in June 2003, Dr Keating told her that she should raise the matter with Dr Patel herself and that, on Ms Hoffman's version (which l accept), Dr Patel was a very experienced surgeon who should not be lost to the hospital,

(b) When Mr Fleming complained to the Base about Dr Patel in October 2003, he testified (and l accept) that the conversation with Dr Keating began with the latter saying that Dr Patel was 'a fine surgeon and we are lucky to have him',

(c) When Dr Cook raised concerns about the same issue in July 2003, Dr Keating told that him that they would be considered by the Credentialing and Privileging Committee, even though there was never such a committee for surgeons. Dr Keating did not return to Dr Cook after he discussed the matter with Dr Patel, nor otherwise seek the advice of an independent surgeon. (d) Whereas Dr Smaiberger gave cogent evidence (which I accept) that he sought to make a formal complaint about two issues concerning the care given to P51, namely Dr Patel's poor clinical decisions and his unprofessional conduct, Dr Keating did not document the matter, and treated the approach simply as a request for advice in dealing with Dr Patel.

(e) When the Renal Unit nurses approached Dr Keating through their line manager about the 100% peritoneal catheter complications, Dr Keating told line manager that if the nurses 'want to play with the big boys, bring it on. When Dr Miach raised the same issue, Dr Keating maintained that he did not receive the report until October 2004, which I do not accept. Even then, he took the view that the report was ambiguous, but did not return to Dr Miach and, instead, informed Mr Leck that the report was based on `poor data'.

(f) When Dr Keating received the Hoffman letter of 22 October 2004, he took no steps to confirm or deny the extraordinary allegation that the Director of Medicine at his hospital refused to allow his patients to be treated by the Director of Surgery, or to ensure that, at the very least, a chart audit was performed by an independent surgeon.

(g) Indeed, even after three doctors had provided some corroboration of Ms Hoffman's concerns, Dr Keating continued to advise Mr Leck that the complaint was largely personality-based.

(h) Dr Berens said that when he and Dr Carter raised concerns about the Kemps' oesophagectomy (against the background of the earlier complaints), Dr Keating showed little interest in investigating and that it was a matter for them whether they reported it to the Coroner, which evidence I also accept,

(I) When Dr Rashford raised serious 'sentinel' concerns about the care of P26, Dr Keating completed a report immediately, and without speaking to the treating surgeon in Bundaberg, he. Dr Patel, or Brisbane, The only conclusion was that transfers should happen more promptly but even this view was not articulated in any formal policy.

(j) There was a general trend in the evidence of Dr Keating failing to inform staff whether their complaints were being progressed.

(k) Dr Keating 's assessments of Dr Patel' s performance to the Medical Board were glowing and knowingly exaggerated, even as late as February 2005. (l) Dr Patel was not credentialed even on an ad hoc basis, when that would have been a simple matter to arrange,

m) Dr Keating did not seek 'deemed specialist' status for Dr Patel with the Medical Board, even though that was the obvious way to ensure that he complied with Australian surgical standards.

n) When Dr FitzGerald visited the Base on 14 February 2005, and notwithstanding the serious concerns raised in Dr Keating's briefing note of early January 2005, Dr Keating did not volunteer any significant information about the perceived shortcomings of Dr Patel,

6.710 These events occurred in circumstances where Dr Patel was giving significant assistance to the Base in reaching its elective surgery targets, where there would be real difficulties in recruiting a new staff surgeon and where a disruption of surgical services at the Base was likely to attract the kind of media attention to which Queensland Health was so averse.

6.711 When the matters are considered together, they lead to the view that there was a strong element of orchestrated incompetence, or wilful blindness, in Dr Keating's response to complaints about his Director of Surgery,

6.712 l find that Dr Keating deliberately diminished or downplayed complaints about Dr Patel. He declined to initiate inquiries into Dr Patel where, at the very least, serious concerns had been raised, and he promoted or acquiesced in a perception amongst staff that Dr Patel was 'protected' by management CRIME AND MISCONDUCT COMMISSION GPO Box 3123 Brisbane Old 4001

Level 3, Terries Place 1 40 Creek St (Cnr Creek and Adelaide) Brisbane, Queensland ourReferencc; N41.07O32/KDA Tel: (07) 3300 6060 Fax: (07) 3360 633,9

Toll Free; 1800 061 611 6 December 2007 Email mailbox car cme.gld,gouau wwwcme gld.gov,au

Mr Robert Messenger MP Member for Burnett Shadow Minister for Police and Corrective Services Shop 7 Bargara Beach Plaza 1519 See Street BARGARA QLD 4670

Dear MrMessenger

RE: CONCERNS ABOUT COMMISSIONER AJ.'KINSON AND SENIOR MEMBER OF TIIE QUEENSLAND POLICE RVICE

Thank you for your letter of 20 November 2007 in which you referred concerns from Me Ian Fleming, President of the Bundaberg Burnett Patient Support Group Inc, about the conduct of Commissioner Atkinson and senior members of the Queensland Police Service (QPS).

We have carefully considered the information you gave us in your letter and we understand that Mr Fleming's requests are that,

(I) Dr Keating he charged with official misconduct, and

(2) The CMC investigate the reasons and decisionsmade by Commissioner Atkinson and senior members of the Queensland Police Service not to prosecute Dr Keating for allegedly providing false and misleading information to the Medical Board of Queensland, and

(3) The CMC investigate the failure of Commissioner Atkinson and the Queensland Police Service to release the decision not to prosecute Dr Keating until after the period of limitation had expired.

Official Misconduct charges against Dr Keating

In relation to the first issue,, the CMC is not able to commence proceedings against Dr Keating for official. misconduct as he no longer falls within the jurisdiction of the Misconduct Tribunal after he resigned from Queensland Health in November 2005, Section 16 of the Crime and Misconduct Act 2001 does enable the CMC to investigate official misconduct after a person has left the Public Service, However, section 50 of the Act means theperson must still be a public servant to be charged with disciplinary charges of official misconduct before the Misconduct Tribunal, The CMC issued a media release on 2 December 2005 explaining its position with respect to Dr Keating, Page 2

Investigating the decisions of'the Queensland Police Service not to prosecute

In relation to the second issue raised by Mr Fleming, for present purposes the CMC's jurisdiction with respect to the conduct of the QPS is limited to there being a reasonable suspicion of police misconduct or official misconduct on the part of any officer. It is not the CMC's role to review legal advice given by its officers unless there is some reasonable suspicion that the advice was intentionally erroneous or the circumstances otherwise suggest some impropriety.

The mere fact that external legal advice is obtained which is contrary to that given by officers ofthe QPS is not evidence of impropriety by any officer of the QPS. Indeed legal opinions regularly conflict. The CIVIC will not act on mere speculation . It Is not in the public Interest to do so. In the absence of any reasonable suspicion that QPS lawyers or investigators acted in abuse of their powers and responsibilities the CMC does not intend taking any further action.

Investigating the timing of tine decision not to pr osecrrte

The CMC considered the chronology of events leadingto and surrounding the publication by the QPS ofits decision that there was insufficient evidence to prosecute Dr Keating. This did not disclose anything to suggest that any officer of the QPS acted improperly . In particular, nothingwas found to suggest that the decision to publish the conclusions reached by the QPS at the time publication occurred was deliberately delayed until after the statute of limitations had expired, thereby ensuring no prosecution of :Dr Keating was possible.

In these circumstances the Commission does not intend taking any further action In the matter and you may wish to advise Mr Fleming accordingly,

Ihave written to the Conunissioner of Police advising him accordingly.

Yours sincerely

ROBERT NEEDHAM. Chairperson Speech by Robert Messenger

MEMBER FOR BURNETT

Hansard Tuesday, 30 October 2007

KEATING, DR D

Mr MESSENGER Burnett-NPA) (12.04 pm): Two royal commissions of inquiry examined events at the Bundaberg Base Hospital where at least 17 lives were lost and hundreds of Queenslanders were Injured between April 2003 and April 2005. Retired Supreme Court judge and royal commissioner, the Hon. Geoffrey Davies, made adverse findings and recommendations of legal action and criminal proceedings against a number of this government's former employees. Commissioner Davies made 14 adverse findings and four recommendations of legal action against Dr Darren Keating who was the director of medical services at the Bundaberg Base Hospital from 14 April 2003 for more than two years. Commissioner Davies also found during Keating's tenure that, in relation to Dr Patel's medical treatment of patients, 22 incidents were formally reported in one form or other. Of those 22 official complaints lodged with Dr Keating relating to Patel's performance, eight were from doctors, three were from nurses, including whistleblower nurse Toni Hoffman, and four were from patients, including one complaint relating to a death which was officially referred to the then health minister seven months before this government paid for Patel's one-way air ticket to America. Keating and this Labor government are not entitled to the excuse that they did not know. The Queensland Police Service issues and responses brief used by Commissioner Atkinson on 18 October 2007-and l table the report shows the following facts in relation to legal action against Dr Darren Keating. Tabled paper: Document titled 'Queensland Police Service Meeting 18 October2007-Bundaberg Hospital Patients Support Group- Issues and Responses'. A detective sergeant was given the job of 'investigating the royal commission's findings and recommendations in December 2005. Six months later, in May 2006, this officer handed his report to Commissioner Atkinson and QPS senior management. The police commissioner and QPS senior management sat on that report for 11 months and then asked Brendan Butler Senior Counsel to undertake an independent assessment of the legal case against Keating. By asking for Mr Butler's assessment of the case against Keating in April 2007, the police minister's department either by accident or by deliberate manipulation ensured that 50 per cent of the legal charges against Keating were no longer possible because the statute of limitations ran out two months earlier-that is, in February 2007. How politically convenient for this government that the independent review was not requested until after the last state election and after the statute of limitations had expired? Commissioner Davies, retired Supreme Court judge, recommended that Dr Keating be charged with criminal offences and official misconduct, This morning this government released Mr Butler's legal report. It confirmed- There is sufficient evidence to support a prima facie case against Dr Keating under the Criminal Code of attempted fraud. Why has this government not acted and taken this prima facie case against Keating and presented it to a Queensland magistrate. We have to trust the government's interpretation of Leanne Clare's advice in relation to Darren Keating which was- ... there was no reasonable prospects of proving the attempted fraud to the necessary criminal standard ...

File name: mess2007_10_30_71.fm Page : 1 of 2 Speech by Robert Messenger extracted from Hansard of Tuesday, 30 October 2007

Yes, there are conflicting expert legal opinions. A retired Supreme Court judge and a senior counsel agree and Ms Clare disagrees. But where there are conflicting legal opinions It is standard police procedure to simply take the matter to court and have the evidence tested before a magistrate or judge. Why is this government scared of having the evidence against Keating tested before a tribunal of fact? The challenge for this government Is to now release the DPP's assessment of the evidence. Even though Keating resigned from his position in Queensland Health he could and should, in the interests of justice and in accordance with the recommendations of Davies, be charged with the criminal offence of official misconduct. The Crime and Misconduct Act at page 25 section16 states- Conduct may be official misconduct even though-

(c) a person involved in the conduct is no longer the holder of an appointment. Official misconduct is a criminal charge along with fraud, which does not have a statute of limitations. Why, when 17 people have died on this watch, has this Labor government protected Keating from legal action? If the state Labor government can pet away with manipulating the legal process, what hope do we have of justice with Rudd managing Patel s prosecution and extradition? If Keating had been caught with a female mud crab, this Labor government would have ensured that he experienced the full force of Queensland law.

File name: mess2007 10 30 71.fm Page ; 2 of 2 Tuesday 13th November, 2007

PRESS RE LEASE

SUBJECT: FAILURE TO CHARGE DARREN KEATING & PETER LECK

The Final Report of the Davies Royal Commission recommends on pages 194- 196 that a number of charges should be laid against Darren Keating and Peter Leck who where responsible for the administration of the Bundaberg Base Hospital during the tenure of Jayant Patel from 2003 thru 2005.

As Leck and Keating have not been charged with any offences at all despite legal opinion that they have prima facie cases to answer this Patient Support Group requires answers, whether they be by the Premier, Anna Bligh, the Attorney General Kerry Shine, the Police Minister Judy Spence or the Queensland Police Commissioner, Bob Atkinson, with full frank and complete disclosure of all legal processes and opinions that have been relied upon to not charge Leck and Keating with any offence at all.

We seek the immediate release of the following: 1. The brief of evidence compiled by QPS for breaches of the MPRA 2. The advice from the AFP re breaches of the Commonwealth Migration Act 3. The advice from the DPP for Attempted Fraud, s408C Old Criminal Code 4. Advice from the QPS & CMC due to failure to prosecute Leck & Keating for Official Misconduct

The Bundaberg Burnett Patient Support Group Inc calls on the Queensland Government to release the information today and I will be seeking immediate meetings today to obtain this information so that the vast majority of Patel victims that this Group represents can fully consider all the documents prior to the visit from the Police Commissioner Bob Atkinson scheduled for 5pm this Thursday 15th November to be held in Bundaberg in the CWA Hall at 15 Quay St.

This is not about revenge but is a call for justice for the scores of people who have lost their lives and the hundreds of people, many ruined for life, who have been injured through the actions of a few, none of whom to date have ever been called to account.

(an Fleming Bundaberg Burnett Patient Support Group Inc 8 Jesse Court QLD 4670 Bargara I Phone: 07 4154 7703