"Soft" female judge lets child rapist walk free

She should be removed from the bench and put on administrative duties only

Cairns judge Sarah Bradley is again under scrutiny after a teenage boy with a previous conviction for rape walked free from court despite pleading guilty to sexually assaulting three sisters. Attorney-General Kerry Shine yesterday requested a copy of the sentencing remarks, the first stage in what could be an appeal following local outrage over the case.

The controversial judge came under fire last year for giving lenient sentences to a group of men and boys who raped a girl at Aurukun, in far north Queensland, but was later cleared of judicial misconduct. Mr Shine successfully appealed the non-custodial sentences given to the nine males. Chief Justice Paul de Jersey said Judge Bradley made several errors in that case, which led to the imposition of manifestly inadequate sentences.

Judge Bradley again hit the headlines this week when she reportedly sentenced the teen rapist to two years' probation and 408 days in detention. Local media reported Judge Bradley said the boy should not be required to spend any more time in jail because he had already served 204 days, angering the victims' family who said the sentence was too short.

Cairns District Court heard the boy had repeatedly sexually assaulted three foster sisters aged 14, 16 and 17. The boy was 14 at the time and living in foster care. He pleaded guilty to 14 counts of indecent treatment.

Judge Bradley could not be contacted for comment yesterday, while Attorney-General Shine also did not want to comment before seeing the sentencing remarks. "The Attorney-General has requested the sentencing remarks to determine whether there are grounds for an appeal," his spokesman said.

But the Department of Child Safety also came under fire over the case yesterday, with the Opposition demanding to know why the boy was placed in the foster home when he had a conviction for raping a toddler. "Placing a youth who had already raped a child back into foster care with young girls was the last thing that should have occurred," Liberal National MP Jann Stuckey said. "This Government has again failed children in care."

Child Safety Minister Margaret Keech said she was "distressed" by the incident but was unable to comment because of pending legal matters. "It is a terrible thing to occur in a family," she said. Mrs Keech indicated an investigation would be conducted.

Source





Amazing public hospital negligence in Melbourne

The Alfred hospital allowed its former trauma chief to operate on patients' vital organs despite his medical licence restricting him to orthopedic surgery. The revelation could pose further legal problems for The Alfred, which already faces the prospect of medical negligence claims from some of Thomas Kossmann's former patients. A report by State Ombudsman George Brouwer found Professor Kossmann performed surgery on lungs, kidneys and bladders - procedures normally done by specialists.

The report, which exposed Professor Kossmann's systematic rorting [misdirection] of public funds and serious administrative failings at The Alfred and the Transport Accident Commission, also found he attempted "difficult and dangerous" surgery in areas in which he had "little experience or proven skill".

Mr Brouwer said The Alfred allowed Professor Kossmann to operate in areas outside his speciality of orthopedic surgery between 2002 and 2007. Orthopedic surgeons primarily deal with bones. The approval was despite an August 2002 ruling by the Medical Practitioners Board of Victoria which stated: "You are restricted to practising within the speciality of orthopedic surgery and are not permitted to practise outside this speciality." Mr Brouwer said the restriction was clearly visible on Professor Kossmann's annual practising certificate and the medical board's online register of practitioners.

Medical negligence lawyers told The Age yesterday that the failure to ensure Professor Kossmann stayed within his area of speciality could pose legal problems for The Alfred because it had a duty to ensure its surgeons were operating in their accredited fields. Law firm Slater & Gordon is already examining potential medical negligence cases against The Alfred and Professor Kossmann.

Alfred chief executive Jennifer Williams earlier this year announced a new policy requiring surgeons to demonstrate their skills before getting hospital approval to perform specialist surgery.

Mr Brouwer found that The Alfred did not act on an undertaking to review Professor Kossmann's credentials after he received an orthopedic fellowship from the Royal Australasian College of Surgeons in 2002. While he awaited acceptance from the college, The Alfred granted temporary approval for him to perform a broad range of procedures under the close supervision of college fellows. At the time, The Alfred acknowledged it would need to review Professor Kossmann's credentials once he was made a college fellow.

But Mr Brouwer found: "There is no evidence that Professor Kossmann's credentials and clinical privileges were ever reviewed. It appears Professor Kossmann, his surgical colleagues, his divisional directors and hospital medical administration did not revisit this important issue during the six years he was with The Alfred."

Professor Kossmann told Mr Brouwer he did not understand that his medical licence from 2002 onwards only permitted him to perform orthopedic surgery. It was only in the course of the Ombudsman's investigation that he became aware he had operated in areas he was not registered to do so. Professor Kossmann resigned from The Alfred in April.

Source




Another breast cancer victim sues government for negligence

A NSW case was reported here just a couple of days ago.

BREASTSCREEN Queensland radiologists failed to detect a malignant tumour in a woman's breast, according to a claim filed in the Supreme Court. She is the second breast cancer sufferer to file for damages in the Supreme Court in the past month over alleged medical negligence. A central Queensland resident has also sued four doctors and Queensland X-Ray after she was allegedly told all was well following a breast image and biopsy on October 19, 2005.

However, according to a claim filed in the Supreme Court registry in Mackay, her Queensland X-Ray image and biopsy report stated: "I am uncomfortable with the cytology (analysis of cells) finding so reassessment of the films is recommended with a review to a repeat biopsy." It is alleged a second doctor she visited did not advise the woman of this, while a third doctor on March 12 last year also failed to advise her. Despite that, two days later they suggested an early follow-up mammogram.

The woman, 53, has since allegedly been diagnosed with stage-four breast cancer with bone, breast and liver lesions. "Had the plaintiff been warned and advised ... she would have undergone further testing," her claim stated. It went on to say that had the further testing been carried out, an early diagnosis of cancer would have been made. Along with pain and suffering, she faced a "loss of expectation of life" and is suing for $276,400.

The woman's case came after another breast cancer sufferer, who now lives in Port Headland in Western Australia, claimed two radiologists at a BreastScreen Queensland service at the Nambour Hospital mistakenly interpreted an increased tissue density in her right breast as "benign". A claim filed in the Supreme Court registry in Brisbane alleged she in fact had a malignant tumour in her right breast, which radiologists should have detected at the time, in June 2005. A proper diagnosis was delayed by 15 months as a result of the negligence of the radiologists, her claim alleged. As a result she would need breast reconstruction surgery in the future and faced a 14 per cent increased chance of dying within the next 10 years. She has sued the state of Queensland for unspecified damages.

Spokeswomen for Queensland Health and Queensland X-Ray declined to comment, saying the matters were still before the court.

Source





Slow but steady climate backdown underway

The Rudd Government has no ambitions to set an example by moving dramatically ahead of other countries with its emissions trading regime, Climate Change Minister Penny Wong has indicated. Senator Wong told The Weekend Australian the Government had "very deliberately" timed the final decisions on the limits or "caps" it would put on Australian greenhouse emissions so they would be taken after a crucial UN meeting in Copenhagen next year. "We will clearly have strong regard to the outcomes of Copenhagen when we are taking those decisions," she said. "We modelled what we are working towards."

Treasury modelling released this week, which found the costs of an ETS would be modest, assumed that developed countries would clinch a deal in Copenhagen and that developing countries such as China would agree on specific emission reduction plans soon afterwards. But industry remains concerned, because of the Government's promise to introduce a scheme regardless of the outcome of Copenhagen.

Business Council of Australia policy director Maria Tarrant said: "The entire focus of the modelling is on there being a global agreement and a global carbon price. It is very disappointing that we don't get any information about what happens if a global agreement does not eventuate."

Kevin Rudd yesterday highlighted the economic dangers of failing to act, pointing out that some countries had threatened border taxes against imports from nations without a cost on carbon. Malcolm Turnbull repeated his call to delay the ETS, saying: "We won't know how much this (ETS) is going to cost until the Government takes into account this global financial crisis".

Source