24 September 2009 by Olivia Collings
CLAIMS that WorkCover South Australia spent $700,000 on legal fees for a
case thrown out of court are wrong according to the firm.
Managing partner at Johnson Winter & Slattery, Peter Slattery, told The
New Lawyer that “the figures you see in the media are completely wrong”.
This revelation comes just a day after The New Lawyer and other news
sources reported the contrary.
The accusations were raised in parliament by shadow attorney-general,
Vickie Chapman, who said: “WorkCover alleges that it has spent more than
$700,000 on prosecution costs in the case of Thompson v Duffin. The case
has been thrown out by the Full Court of the Supreme Court on the grounds
that the prosecution, which was directed by WorkCover and not by the DPP,
acted improperly.
"The justices of the Supreme Court identified in their judgment that the case
bore all the hallmarks of a win-at-all-costs approach and that WorkCover
has no prosecuting guidelines such as those which are almost universally
applicable to state prosecuting authorities and which are designed.”
In response to the allegations, South Australian attorney-general, Michael
Atkinson, agreed with Chapman, saying: “I share her concerns.”
He added: “The prosecution was done by the private law firm Johnson
Winter & Slattery. The judgment is a condemnation of their methods. I think
that WorkCover would be well advised to look towards the Crown to do future
prosecutions. I think that policy change suggests itself in the judgment.
“When I first came to office as attorney-general, the crown thought that there
was a move to privatise their work, to farm it out to private legal firms; in fact,
many members of the Crown Solicitor's Office seemed pessimistic about their
future. I never entertained for a moment privatising the work of the Crown
Solicitor's Office. My view is that the Crown Solicitor's Office does an
outstanding job and that any well-run government would rely on in-house
government lawyers who take a whole-of-government perspective.”
Slattery said he was unable to comment on the case, as it was an ongoing issue,
but was adamant the figures quoted in the media and parliament were incorrect.
“I don’t know where they come from,” he said. “The number they have is wrong.”
Julia Davison, CEO of WorkCover SA, said the decision to employ Johnson
Winter & Slattery for the case against Thompson, was based on WorkCovers’
obligation to the workers they represent.
“WorkCover appoints legal representation on a case by case basis, utilising
firms that have a prosecutorial background and knowledge of the Workers
Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1986,” she said.
"WorkCover is responsible for ensuring compliance with our state's workers
rehabilitation and compensation legislation. Part of this responsibility includes
taking steps to thoroughly investigate allegations of fraud against the scheme
and, where appropriate, initiate court proceedings."
The case started in the Adelaide Magistrates Court on August 13, 2004, and
ended on September 4 of this year in front of the South Australian Supreme Court.
The leader of the opposition, Isobel Redmond, did not return The New Lawyers
calls in time for publication.
No comments:
Post a Comment